Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Dover Harbour Bill [Lords],

Ordered, "That, notwithstanding that the Clause required to be inserted by Standing Order 180 has been made subject to a proviso, having regard to the consideration mentioned in the Report of the Committee, the Bill be now taken into consideration."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

Bill, as amended, considered accordingly.

Motion made, "That Standing Orders 240 and 262 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

King's Consent signified; Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Salford Corporation Bill [Lords],

As Amended, to be considered Tomorrow, at half-past Seven of the clock.

Pier and Harbour (Elgin and Lossiemouth and Southwold) Bill,

Lords Amendment considered, and agreed to.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Warwick) Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS

BOLIVIA AND PARAGUAY.

Mr. MANDER: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the present position with regard to the dispute between Bolivia and Paraguay; and whether agreement has now
been reached respecting the League of Nations' plan for a peaceful settlement by arbitration?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): The League Commission which, as I informed my hon. Friend on 6th July, is to visit the Chaco, has now been completed and it is hoped that it will sail early in August. The United Kingdom member of the Commission is Brigadier A. B. Robertson. Pending the arrival of this Commission in the Chaco, it is, as I have already explained, provided in the League report accepted by the Bolivian and Paraguayan representatives that negotiations should proceed in Geneva for the purpose of determining the questions on which there should be arbitration.

Mr. MANDER: Can the hon. Gentleman give the names of the other members?

Mr. EDEN: I cannot.

Mr. HANNON: Have Paraguay and Bolivia paid their contributions to the League of Nations for last year?

Mr. EDEN: The bon. Member should put that question on the Paper.

CHINA (TECHNICAL OFFICER'S APPOINTMENT).

Mr. MOREING: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the China Committee of the League of Nations has recently met in Paris and has appointed a supervising technical officer, who is to proceed forthwith to China; what is the nationality of the person appointed; has the Secretary of State knowledge of any further appointments likely to be made by this committee; and are the proceedings of the committee published in a form available to Members of this House?

Mr. EDEN: Yes, Sir. At a meeting in Paris on 18th July of the special committee set up by the Council of the League to examine the action to be taken on a request recently received from the Chinese Government for technical assistance in reconstruction work in China, Dr. Rajchman, Director of the Health Section of the League Secretariat, was appointed, for a period of one year, as technical agent of the League attached to the
Chinese Government. Dr. Rajchman is of Polish nationality. I have no knowledge of any further appointments likely to be made by the committee. As regards the last part of the question, I do not anticipate that the minutes of the committee will be published, as this is not the usual practice in the case of such technical committees.

Mr. HANNON: In view of the fact that the setting up of this Committee will involve expense, I would ask whether China has paid its contribution to the League of Nations?

Mr. EDEN: I believe the Chinese Government is paying up the arrears under a special arrangement.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA

RAILWAYS (BRITISH BONDHOLDERS).

Mr. MOREING: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state to what extent payments are due from the Shanghai-Nanking Railway for interest and for amortisation, respectively; and whether he will request the Chinese Government to carry out its obligation under Article 15 of the original loan agreement to devise other means of paying the bondholders if the railway's revenues were at any time insufficient?

Mr. EDEN: The arrears of interest and amortisation on the Shanghai-Nanking Railway Loan as on the 1st June, 1933, are as follows: interest, £208,800; amortisation, £464,000. His Majesty's Minister has reminded the Chinese Government of their obligations under the loan agreement, and has urged that, failing payment from railway revenues, immediate and constructive measures should be taken to arrange for payment from other sources.

Mr. MOREING: Is it not a fact that since January, 1930, the Chinese Government have exercised a large measure of control over this railway, and that, as a consequence, the inefficiency and mismanagement have been so great that the interests of British bondholders have been greatly prejudiced?

Mr. EDEN: That may be so, but the question on the Paper is as to what action we should take to induce the
Chinese Government to meet the liability to the bondholders.

Mr. MOREING: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state how much the Tientsin-Pukow Railway is in arrears to British creditors for interest and for amortisation, respectively, and when and in respect of what period the last coupon was paid; and whether he has any further information as to payments by the Tientsin-Pukow Railway Company into a monthly fund for the satisfaction of creditors?

Mr. EDEN: I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate a statement of the arrears on the Tientsin Pukow Railway Loan of 1908 and supplementary loans of 1910 in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I have, however, no information as to what proportion of these loans is at present held by British subjects. The last payment made was in respect of the balance of coupon No. 33 of the German issue of the 1908 loan (due 1st October, 1924), amounting to 225,125; payment was made on the 13th January, 1933. As regards the last part of the question, representations have been addressed by His Majesty's Minister to the Chinese Government drawing their attention to the imperative necessity for the resumption by the railway administration of payments into the special reserve account which have been discontinued since February last.

Following is the statement of arrears of amortisation and interest on the TientsinPukow Railway Loan of 1908 and supplementary loan of 1910, British and German issues:



Amortisation.
 Interest.


1908.

£
£


British issue
…
693,750
434,746


German issue
…
1,417,500
937,152


1910.





British issue
…
444,000
355,200


German issue
…
850,400
722,916

FOREIGN COMPANIES.

Mr. NUNN: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received a Report from His Majesty's Minister in China on the effect of the Chinese Government's order that all foreign companies must be registered in the Chinese registry?

Mr. EDEN: Yes, Sir. A report has been received from His Majesty's Minister in China on the subject and this is now under consideration.

Mr. NUNN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the chief objection of the commercial community in China is not to mere registration, but to the fact that the regulations are most onerous, and that they include even the right of the Chinese Government to call for and retain the books of a firm?

Mr. EDEN: We are very much aware of the importance of this subject, and that is why we are considering this report.

SITUATION.

Mr. COVE: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present position regarding the Japanese invasion of China?

Mr. EDEN: The Japanese and Manchurian forces have, I understand, already for the most part retired beyond the Great Wall in accordance with the terms of the armistice recently arranged. I am further informed that arrangements were recently made whereby part of Li Chi-chun's forces are to be included in the Chinese police force which is due to take over the neutral zone in accordance with these terms and that the remainder are to be disbanded. As regards the railway, it is reported that a certain number of passenger trains are now running between Tientsin and Tongshan and between Tongshan. and Shanhiakuan pending the completion of negotiations for the resumption of through traffic.

Mr. COCKS: Are not the forces of General Li Chi-chun allies or auxiliaries of the Japanese, and not Chinese forces at all?

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Will the Foreign Office see to it that the same circumstances do not eventuate in that quarter as arose in the Principality of Korea?

Mr. EDEN: The hon. Member will see from the answer that the position is improving to the extent that the terms of the armistice are being carried out.

Mr. COVE: What part is the League of Nations playing in all this business?

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

NAZI TROOPS.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information regarding the organisation of the Nazi troops in Germany as 'a military force; and whether His Majesty's Government is taking any action in the matter?

Mr. EDEN: As my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State,for Foreign Affairs, informed the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) on 8th May, the question of potential military effectives is under consideration by the Disarmament Conference, which has yet to reach a conclusion in the matter.

Mr. BEVAN: Would the hon. Gentleman inform the House whether inquiries have been made as to the extent to which these troops have now been organised as a permanent military arm of Germany since May?

Mr. EDEN: That is not the question on the Paper. This subject is before the Disarmament Conference, and we as members of that Conference have it before us there.

AEROPLANES.

Mr. COCKS: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has any information regarding the ordering of police aeroplanes by the German Government; and whether they 'are taking any action in the matter?

Mr. EDEN: Yes, Sir; the German Air Minister expressed to the British Air Attached in Berlin on the 15th July his desire to purchase 25 to 50 British aircraft for police purposes. His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires in Berlin informed the German Government yesterday in reply to this communication that His Majesty's Government could not countenance the sale of British aircraft to the German Government for purposes forbidden by the Paris Air Agreement.

Mr. MANDER: Were there any direct approaches to manufacturers of aircraft in this country, as stated in the Press?

Mr. EDEN: That is another question.

Mr. CAPORN: Will other countries follow suit? Will America. or Italy sell Germany these aeroplanes?

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA AND ENGLAND (TREATY).

Mr. LEES-JONES: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether discussions are now in progress between the Soviet and British Governments with the object of effecting a treaty, as distinct from a trade agreement, between the two countries; and, if not, whether discussions with that object in view are contemplated to take place in the near future?

Mr. EDEN: No, Sir. No discussions for a permanent treaty are at present in progress. Whether they are likely to take place in the near future depends on various circumstances, including the attitude of the Soviet Government towards the question of debts and claims.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOUR-POWER PACT.

Mr. COCKS: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government will publish in a White Paper the various versions of the Four-Power Pact which have been considered from the time of the first draft considered during the visit of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to Rome to the time when the Four-Power Pact was signed on 15th July?

Mr. EDEN: As my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs informed my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson) on the 29th June last, it is not considered that the expense of printing these documents would be justified. The French blue book now in the Library of the House contains all the substantive versions.

Mr. COCKS: Seeing that the French blue book is printed in French, could not the British Government give us an opportunity also of seeing the stages by which this treaty has been rendered harmless and meaningless?

Mr. EDEN: If the hon. Member would like to see an English translation of the French version, I should be glad to supply it to him.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

SCOTTISH SHALE OILS (PURCHASES).

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 13.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how much Scottish shale oil has been purchased for the
Admiralty in the last three years; and if it is intended to increase the purchases of shale oil for the Navy, in view of the Government's declared policy of encouraging the production of oil in this country from coal and shale?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lord Stanley): The following are the approximate totals of the various grades of Scottish shale oils purchased by the Admiralty during the financial years shown:—

Gallons.


1930
…
…
…
…
207,500


1931
…
…
…
…
266,500


1932
…
…
…
…
225,500


These oils are used for special purposes. The possibility of increasing the purchases of shale oil is restricted by the fact that the shale industry is not producing any fuel oil.

SHIPBUILDING CONTRACTS.

Mr. PEARSON: 14.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the value of the naval contracts placed on the Tyne, on the Clyde, and at Barrow under the 1931-32 and 1932-33 programmes?

Lord STANLEY: The estimated values of the contracts for naval shipbuilding placed on the Tyne, Clyde and at Barrow under the 1931 and 1932 programmes are approximately:

£


Tyne
…
…
…
2,500,000


Clyde
…
…
…
4,000,000


Barrow
…
…
…
1,800,000

HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "EFFINGHAM" (RESERVISTS).

Mr. TOM SMITH: 15.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can give the number of reservists embarked during the cruise of the vice-admiral commanding the reserve fleet in his flagship His Majesty's Ship "Effingham"; why these reservists were not embarked in home fleet ships which have been visiting in the same localities as in previous years; and whether he can now give the cost of this cruise?

Lord STANLEY: The number of reservists embarked in "Effingham" during her cruise will be approximately 27 officers and 624 men of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve. The superior accommodation available in the flagship of the vice-admiral commanding the re-
serve fleet enables ratings of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve to be embarked in larger batches, accompanied by their own officers, than would be possible if ships of the home fleet were utilised, and this is most desirable. The cost of this cruise is estimated at £1,250.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION

MALAYA (LANDING GROUNDS).

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the landing grounds to be provided in the Malay Government Territory for the Imperial Airways route extension to Singapore will be available to other British private and commercial aircraft on the same terms as those granted to aircraft of Imperial Airways, Limited?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I see no reason to doubt that the aerodromes and landing grounds used by Imperial Airways in Malaya will be open for use on the same terms by other British private and commercial aircraft. I will, however, communicate with the High Commissioner on the subject.

JAMAICA.

Captain BALFOUR: 18 and 19.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether any applications for facilities and assistance for the operation of aircraft to and from Jamaica have yet been received from British or from American concerns; and what reply has been given to any such applications;
(2) what support the Government of Jamaica are giving to the operation of the Kingston seaplane base by Caribbean Airways, Limited?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Two American companies have applied for facilities to operate aircraft to and from Jamaica. The first application was made early in 1928, but advantage was not taken of the permission then granted for the operation of an air service. The second application was received in 1930 from Pan-American Airways. Permission was granted for the operation of an air service to Jamaica in connection with the through service between North and South America. The service started in December, 1930, and is still being operated.
Two British companies have also applied for permission to operate air services to and from Jamaica, and for financial assistance towards the operation of such services. The first application was received from Atlantic Airways, Limited, in 1929, and included proposals for the operation of air services in other parts of the West Indies. The proposal to operate an air service to Jamaica was not, however, pursued by the company.
The second application was submitted in 1930 by Caribbean Airways, Limited, a British company registered in Jamaica. This company proposed to build an air base, and to operate air services from Jamaica to Cuba, Haiti and the Bahamas in return for financial assistance amounting in all to about £100,000. The company has established an air base in Jamaica. Their application for financial assistance towards its development and the operation of the proposed air services was sympathetically considered both by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and by the Government of Jamaica, but even though the total assistance asked for was subsequently reduced it has not been found possible to grant the assistance desired. In these circumstances the company are, I understand; unable to continue to operate the air base. Negotiations are now in progress between the local Government and Pan-American Airways for the lease of the air base to that company. If such a lease is granted, one of its conditions will be that the air base shall be available for use, upon payment of appropriate charges, by other aircraft without distinction of nationality.

PALESTINE (AIR MAIL CONTRACT).

Wing-Commander JAMES: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that, owing to the small gain in time which can be obtained thereby, the Palestine Government has recently transferred its air mail contract from the British service to the Dutch service; and whether, as this small gain is likely to disappear very shortly as a result of fresh developments and in view of the fact that the British Government is now making a large loan to Palestine, he will take steps to persuade the Palestine Government to reverse its decision?

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for the
Colonies whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Palestine Government has recently transferred their contract for air mails from the British services to the Dutch; and whether, in view of the fact that the ground organisation in Palestine is entirely provided by the former, he will take steps to persuade the Palestine Government to alter its decision in this respect?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am making inquiries of the High Commissioner. Subject to his confirmation I understand that there is no exclusive air mail contract. I understand that the Dutch mail leaves on Tuesdays and the British on Fridays; and that the Government use for urgent correspondence whichever is available nearest to the date when despatch is required. As regards the latter part of the question asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Wellingborough (Wing-Commander James), if he will refer to the statement which I made on the 14th of July in the Debate on the Colonial Office Vote, he will find that there is no question of the British Government making a loan to Palestine.

PRIVATE AIRCRAFT (LANDING FEES).

Mr. SIMMONDS: 29.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he will state the sum of money received during the past financial year for landing and housing fees for private aircraft; and if, in view of their contributing in petrol taxes without making use of the highways, he will now grant remission of these fees?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): An exact figure is not available, but the fees in respect of private aircraft at publicly-owned aerodromes amounted in 1932 to approximately £1,500. These fees represent payment towards the cost of facilities provided from public funds, and I regret that I can see no case for their remission on account of the petrol tax, which is quite a separate matter.

Mr. SIMMONDS: Would it not De an economy, in view of the heavy cost of collection and the small amount of money received, if the right hon. Gentleman were to agree to this remission?

Sir P. SASSOON: Perhaps my hon. Friend would put that question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Oral Answers to Questions — HONG KONG (PUBLIC WORKS).

Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that under the proposed Hong Kong Foreshore and Sea-Bed Works Bill power is given to the Government of Hong Kong to carry out reclamation schemes of an extensive nature; to erect piers which would compete with the berthing, loading and discharging facilities of existing private piers; to construct and maintain Government warehouses in competition with the existing private warehouse facilities; and to institute Government ferry services for vehicles and passengers, competing with existing private ferry services of this nature; and whether, in view of the fact that no public works of this nature are in contemplation by the Government of Hong Kong, he will give instructions that the present Bill be re-drafted so as to authorise the carrying out of public works of a minor nature only?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am aware of the provisions contained in the Bill. As my hon. Friend was informed on the 13th of July, I have not yet received from the Governor of Hong Kong any detailed proposals for works to be executed under it. The proposed scope and provisions of the Bill are under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA (EDUCATION OFFICER'S STATEMENT).

Mr. MANDER: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been called to the statement in, the Malta Government Gazette of 7th July, 1933, by the Reverend A. V. Pantalleresco, the director of secondary schools, with reference to the possible revocation of the Royal letters patent of 2nd May, 1932; and whether he is able to give an assurance that no revocation is contemplated?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: My attention has been drawn to the statement in question by Mr. Pantalleresco. I need hardly say that there is no intention whatever of altering the letters patent of 25th April, 1932.

Mr. MANDER: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to the reverend gentleman in question that he must not repeat statements of this kind?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I cannot be responsible for the truth of statements made irresponsibly by either reverend or irrevererld gentlemen, but I can make plain, and have repeatedly made plain, the policy of His Majesty's Government.

Lieut.-Commander BOWER: Could not the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to the Governor of Malta that such pronouncements of a political nature on the part of civil servants are undesirable.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think any pronouncements of a political nature by any civil servants anywhere are most undesirable.

Oral Answers to Questions — GIBRALTAR (EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ORDINANCE).

Mr. MACLEAN: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet had under consideration a Workmen's Compensation Act to cover the workmen at Gibraltar; and whether he can now state his decision in the matter?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: A committee appointed by the Governor of Gibraltar examined this question in 1922 and came to the conclusion that it would be inadvisable to introduce workmen's compensation legislation. My predecessor at that time concurred in the committee's conclusion. The matter has been reviewed from time to time since then, and I am satisfied that the objections to the enactment of such legislation in Gibraltar still apply with equal force. The hon. Member is, however, no doubt aware that an Employers' Liability Ordinance is in force in the Colony.

Mr. MACLEAN: As the Employers' Liability Ordinance in force does not operate with the same justice with regard to injured employés there, will the right hon. gentleman now consider the alteration of that Ordinance by introducing something similar to the Compensation Act in this country?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That is a, different question—whether the Act now in force should be amended. If the hen. Gentleman will put down a question to that effect, I will have it considered. I think he knows, however, that there are very strong reasons against putting a workmen's compensation Act in force.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that when the committee of inquiry were hearing evidence, certain workers' representatives who were put forward as witnesses were not examined?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I could not possibly answer that question. I was asked about workmen's compensation, and I think the arguments which were given against it and which have been endorsed by previous Governors and Governments are conclusive.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (PUBLIC WORKS).

Mr. JANNER: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether provision will be made for the payment of fair wages in respect of any works executed from the proceeds of the Palestinian Loan?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The question of making provision for fair conditions of labour will be considered when the Guaranteed Loan Bill is being drafted.

Mr. JANNER: Will the House have an opportunity of discussing the allocation before the Bill guaranteeing the loan is passed?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That is an entirely different question. The House will, of course, have an opportunity when considering the Bill, of discussing everything in the Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE (FLYING BOATS).

Mr. SIMMONDS: 28.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the number of. Royal Air Force flying-boats now in commission and reserve whose range, with normal service load, exceeds 1,500 miles?

Sir P. SASSOON: The Royal Air Force. have at present no flying boats in commission whose range with normal service load exceeds 1,500 miles.

Mr. SIMMONDS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that several foreign Powers have considerable numbers of these boats, in particular Italy, which has several dozen; and can he promise to remedy this serious deficiency?

Sir P. SASSOON: My hon. Friend will realise that comparisons as to the per-
formances of different types of aircraft of various countries cannot profitably be pursued by question and answer in the House. We are continually experimenting in flying boats. My answer referred to the normal service load and not to performance if there is extra tankage.

Mr. SIMMONDS: Does the hon. Gentleman's answer indicate that he is satisfied with the present position?

Sir P. SASSOON: I did not say that I was satisfied, but that we were continuing to experiment in this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — 604TH SQUADRON, AUXILIARY AIR FORCE (HEADQUARTERS).

Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: 30.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air when the headquarters of the 604th Squadron Auxiliary Air Force will be ready for occupation?

Sir P. SASSOON: I regret that I win not in a position to give a definite date. I hope, however, that difficulties which have caused some delay may soon be surmounted.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while the difficulties will have taken about a year to surmount, the application was made to the Ministry at least two months ago, and, as it is important that these headquarters should be ready for winter, is it not possible for sanction to be given before the Recess or before the summer is out?

Sir P. SASSOON: As soon as a decision is reached the work will be proceeded with without undue delay.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY UNDERTAKINGS.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: 31.
asked the Minister of Transport what annual sum the electrical generating industry will be required to pay annually to the Central Electricity Board in respect of interest and amortisation of the loans incurred for the standardisation of electrical frequency; and what addition this would involve on the average in the charge for electrical energy per unit?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): The figures as to the estimated annual charges in con-
nection with standardisation of frequency asked for by my hon. Friend are set out in the Annual Report of the Electricity Commissioners for 1931-32. It is estimated that when standardisation throughout the country is completed and all recoverable expenditure refunded, the annual loan charges will be of the order of £900,000, and that they are not likely to represent at any time more than about 0.0155d. per unit sold.

Mr. WILLIAMS: 32.
asked the Minister of Transport if he can state for 1932 or for the latest year available the number of units of electricity generated per ton of coal used by electrical undertakings owned by local authorities and companies, respectively?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: In 1932 the number of units of electricity generated per ton of coal and coke used in the steam power stations of authorised undertakings (which stations account for upwards of 98 per cent. of the total output of such undertakings) was approximately 1,220 in the case of undertakings belonging to public authorities and 1,454 in the case of undertakings belonging to companies.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say why it is that companies are so much more efficient in burning coal than are municipalities?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I could not say that, because I really am not sure that that is right. There are many considerations that have to be taken into account, but this is not the time to go into them.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

GLASGOW SUBWAY.

Mr. MACLEAN: 33.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has considered the application made by the Glasgow Corporation transport department for sanction to proceed with the scheme of the local underground railway known as the subway; and when authority to proceed with the scheme will be given so that the railway can be modernised and employment given to unemployed workers?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The Corporation submitted the plans of this scheme for my approval in May last, and
I have indicated to them the nature of the conditions on which I am advised such approval could properly be given with due regard for public safety. My officers have given, and will continue to give, the Corporation all the assistance within their power with a view to expediting the matter.

Mr. MACLEAN: Has the Glasgow Corporation intimated acceptance of the conditions imposed?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I cannot answer that question without notice.

HIGHWAYS (EXPENDITURE).

Mr. BURNETT: 34.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will arrange for the distribution of Circular No. 383 (Roads) to members of town and county councils?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: For the reasons given in the reply to my bon. Friend's similar question on the I9th July, I do not consider that the expense of the suggested further distribution would be justified.

Mr. BURNETT: Is my hon. and gallant Friend satisfied that members of county councils are made aware as to the provisions in that circular, Sections 16 and 21, with regard to tenders and supplies of material?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The officers of local authorities have this information, which can easily be obtained by members of county councils and other local bodies if they so desire.

Mr. BURNETT: Is my hon. and gallant Friend satisfied that those provisions will be carried out if members of county councils do not happen to be supplied with the information?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I am quite satisfied.

QUEENSFERRY FERRY CHARGES.

Mr. JOHN WALLACE: 35.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has any further information regarding the Queens-ferry ferry charges?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I understand that the railway company have not yet reached a decision in this matter. In the meantime my hon. Friend received representations dated the 20th July, from the Edinburgh Corporation, the county
councils of Fife and West Lothian and other local authorities under Section 4 of the London and North Eastern Railway Order Confirmation Act, 1925, which empowers him in certain circumstances, and after holding an inquiry, to revise all or any of the charges authorised for the use of Queensferry ferry. This representation is now under his consideration.

Mr. GUY: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman not agree that the obvious solution to this problem is a road bridge across the Forth?

MOTORING ACCIDENTS (LONDON).

Captain DOWER: 63.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to the increase in the number of persons killed and injured by motor vehicles in London during The first six months of this year compared with the same period of 1932; and will he state what action, if any, he proposes to take with regard to this growing menace?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): Yes, Sir, and everyone will, I am sure, deplore the increase in the number of accidents which is disclosed. The problem has many aspects but I, think it is clear that any reduction in the number of accidents must be dependent, in the main, on the exercise of greater care and a higher sense of responsibility on the part of all road users. So far as the police are concerned, the enforcement of the law and other work in connection with road accidents already absorbs a. large amount of their time and energies; and I can assure my hon. Friend that they will continue to do all in their power to contribute to the safety of road users.

Captain DOWER: Is my right hon. Friend aware that persons are being killed in street accidents in London at the rate of nearly four a day, and injured at the rate of 170 a day, and does he not think it would help if he increased the maximum penalty for reckless and dangerous driving?

Lieut.-Commander BOWER: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that these accidents might be reduced by introducing penalties for jay-walking pedestrians—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!" I—who ignore the police and other traffic signals?

Mr. LEVY: Is it not true that contributory negligence on the part of pedestrians is to a very great extent the cause of these accidents?

HON. MEMBERS: No.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the two supplementary questions, is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to introduce legislation refusing to pedestrians the right to walk in the street at all?

Sir J. GILMOUR: All I can say is that I trust the common sense both of motor users and pedestrians will lead to a fewer number of accidents.

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT, 1930 (CONVICTIONS).

Captain DOWER: 64.
asked the Home Secretary the number of convictions under Sections 11 and 12 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, in London during the first six months of 1932 and 1933, respectively?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The number of persons convicted during the first six months of 1932 was 163 under Section 11 and 1,254 under Section 12. The corresponding figures for 1933 were 229 under Section 11 and 1,103 under Section 12.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (TAX OFFICE, BLOOMSBURY).

Mr. BANFIELD: 36.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that the accommodation provided for His Majesty's inspector of taxes and staff at the Bloomsbury tax office, Room 309, 88, Kingsway, W.C.2, is overcrowded and lacking in privacy for callers; whether it is proposed to obtain alternative accommodation; and, if so, by what date it is anticipated the removal can be effected?

Captain AUSTIN HUDSON (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend understands that the space available for public callers in Room 309, No. 88, Kingsway, is less than that normally provided, but otherwise the premises occupied by the Bloomsbury tax office are considered to be adequate. The possibilities of improving the accommodation for the public will be investigated without delay.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANCIENT MONUMENTS (PRESERVATION).

Major OWEN: 37.
asked the First Commissioner of Works what was the amount spent on the preservation of ancient monuments in the years 1925 and 1932 in England and Wales, respectively?

Captain HUDSON: The total expenditure, including caretakers' wages, was, for England, approximately £35,000 in 1925 and £26,000 in 1932; for Wales, £0,000 in 1925 and £10,000 in 1932.

Mr. A. BEVAN: Does that include the sum of money spent by the Government on the World Economic Conference?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

RABBIT TRAPS (IMPORT DITTY, AUSTRALIA).

Mr. MANDER: 38.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he is aware that there is at the present time. with exchange and duty, a restriction of 80 per cent. on British traps exported to Australia; and whether he is taking any steps to obtain a reduction in this level?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I am aware that the duty in the Commonwealth of Australia on United Kingdom rabbit traps is at a high level, but it has also to be remembered that, since the Ottawa Conference, the alternative specific duty of 10s. per dozen on such traps, and also the primage duty of 10 per cent. ad valorem, have been removed. The present duty of 45 per cent. ad valorem on United Kingdom rabbit traps (which is 20 per cent. ad valorem less than the corresponding ad valorem duty on foreign rabbit traps) was recommended by the Commonwealth Tariff Board in December, 1932.

Mr. MANDER: But is my right hon. Friend aware that in spite of that, the 45 per cent. duty is still prohibitive, and that this situation is causing widespread unemployment in Wednesfield, the centre of the trap industry in this country; and will he continue to use his best endeavours to get a reduction?

Mr. THOMAS: I am not unmindful of the importance of rabbit traps, but I have equally in mind the Debate to-morrow, and I hope to give my hon. Friend all the information that I have on the subject.

OTTAWA AGREEMENTS (AUSTRALIA).

Mr. PERKINS: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether in view of the dissatisfaction existing among British manufacturers over the recent increases in the Australian duties against certain British manufactured goods, and in view of the fact that these increases are in direct opposition to the spirit of the Ottawa Agreements, he will allow the House an opportunity to discuss this matter before the summer Adjournment?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I would remind my hon. Friend that, as announced in the House on the 20th July, matters relating to the Dominions will be discussed to-morrow in connection with the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.

Mr. PERKINS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give same assurance that the short time available to-morrow will not be monopolised by ex-Cabinet Ministers?

RUBBER INDUSTRY.

Sir EDWARD CAMPBELL: 53.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state when it is proposed to introduce the Rubber Industry Bill into this House?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): In recent weeks a number of rubber manufacturers who were formerly in favour of the proposals in this Bill have changed their views, and the main principle of the Bill does not now command such support in the industry as would justify the Government in proceeding with it. I understand, however, that efforts are being made to continue the work of the Research Association of British Rubber Manufacturers by means of voluntary subscriptions.

GERMANY (SCRAP-IRON IMPORTS).

Mr. A. BEVAN: 54.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give the number of tons of scrap-iron imported into Germany from all countries during the first four months of 1933, as compared with the amount imported during the same period in 1932?

Dr. BURGIN: The total quantity of scrap and old iron, other than hammer slag, rolling mill waste, grindings and foundry scrap, imported for consumption
into Germany during the first four months of 1933 amounted to 176,732 tons, compared with 16,216 tons during the corresponding period of 1932.

Mr. BEVAN: Will the hon. Member ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to inquire into the significance of that increase?

Dr. BURGIN: The matter is not being overlooked at all. The whole of the importations are being considered and a good deal of information is already available.

Mr. BEVAN: My supplementary question was whether the hon. Member would ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to make inquiries into this extraordinary increase that has taken place, and whether it has any bearing on the obligations of Germany under the Treaty of Versailles?

Mr. LAWSON: As the hon. Gentleman says that he has some information, cannot he give us the reason for this increase?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is not scrap merely used as an alternative to pig-iron, and is not the amount of the importations solely dependent on the relative prices?

LEVANT FAIR.

Mr. JANNER: 61.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what steps are being taken to bring to the notice of British firms the advantages of exhibiting at the forthcoming Levant Fair?

Dr. BURGIN: I presume the hon. Member refers to the Levant Fair to be held next year at Tel-Aviv in Palestine. The Department of Overseas Trade, in conjunction with the Federation of British Industries, has for some time been in touch with the organising authorities of the fair as to the best means of promoting British participation and negotiations are in progress between the federation and the fair authorities. The Department will be prepared to give the federation such assistance as may be possible when those negotiations have been, as I hope they will be, satisfactorily concluded. In the meanwhile, the Department is periodically giving publicity in the Board of Trade Journal to the holding of the fair.

Mr. HANNON: Does this answer imply that financial assistance will be given to this project?

Dr. BURGIN: I shall have to have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — MIGRANT LAND SETTLEMENT, AUSTRALIA.

Mr. LUNN: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he is in a position to make a. further statement regarding the action to be taken by the Government in the United Kingdom on the Report of the Royal Commission on Migrant Land Settlement in Victoria, Australia?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: The Conference to which I referred in my answer of the 18th July is now in session, and I am not therefore as yet in a position to add anything to that answer. I can, however, assure my hon. Friend that I am continuing to take all possible steps to expedite a decision in this matter.

Mr. LUNN: Can we expect a definite answer to-morrow in the Debate on Dominion affairs?

Mr. THOMAS: I have no reason to believe that the Conference will be finished to-night, and therefore I could not indicate the decision of the Conference, but I shall nave no hesitation in stating to-morrow the views of the British Government on this matter.

Mr. MAXTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this matter has been before the House now for nearly two years, ever since he has been in office, and that many people in Australia are suffering very seriously because he is unable to take a decision on the matter?

Mr. THOMAS: No. If the latter part of the hon. Member's question were true, I would feel guilty, but the other people are creating the difficulties.

Mr. LUNN: 40.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what is the estimate of the financial loss of all those migrants who went from the United Kingdom to Victoria and whose complaints have recently been inquired into by a Royal Commission?

Mr. THOMAS: I fear that it is not possible to furnish this information.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

DRAWING EXAMINATIONS.

Mr. TINKER: 41.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education if he will give the figures for each of the last five years of the persons who have sat for the Board of Education's examination in drawing and the subjects that come under this head, and the number who have been successful?

Mr. WOMERSLEY (Lord of the Treasury): As the answer includes a number of figures it is proposed, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. TINKER: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the progress in recent years has been more successful?

Mr. WOMERSLEY: The hon. Member will receive a copy of the answer this afternoon, and, if he will await the figures, he will find that it is a little more favourable.

Following is the answer:

The number of candidates who sat for the Board's drawing examination and the number who passed during each of the last five years are as follows:


Year.


Candidates.
Passed.


1929
…
…
344
199


1930
…
…
412
258


1931
…
…
453
290


1932
…
…
489
280


1933
…
…
476
275

The examination covers architectural drawing, anatomy, perspective, drawing from memory, and knowledge, drawing from the antique and drawing from life.

STUDENTS IN TRAINING COLLEGES (FINAL EXAMINATION).

Mr. TINKER: 42.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education if he will give the figures for each of the last five years of the number of entrants for the Board of Education elementary school-teacher's certificate examination, and the number of successful candidates?

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I have been asked to reply. The Board of Education's certificate examination for teachers in elementary schools was discontinued in 1926. The final examination for students in
training colleges was held by the Board for the last time in 1929. Since that date it has been conducted by joint examining boards consisting of representatives of training colleges, universities and other bodies. The number of entrants for these examinations and of successful candidates during each of the last five years will be found in Table 92 of the Board's Annual Report and Statistics [Cmd. 4364.]

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA

WATER SUPPLY, SIALKOT.

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that, while the lowliest of followers in Sialkot are supplied with pure piped water, officers are dependent on open wells in their gardens which, apart from being insanitary, are the chief breeding places of mosquitoes; what steps are to be taken to ensure that all officers' houses are mosquito proof; and whether the Government of India are taking any steps to remedy the present state of affairs?

Sir VICTOR WARRENDER (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): I have been asked to reply. Inquiries are being made, and my right hon. Friend will let my hon. Friend know the result.

Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: If the allegations contained in the question are found to be correct, will the matter be put right?

Sir V. WARRENDER: I can tell my hon. Friend that the authorities in India have power, where British officers rent quarters, to insist on the landlord providing them with pipe water. How far these powers are being enforced I cannot say, but no doubt my right hon. Friend will let the hon. Gentleman know.

SARDA CHILD MARRIAGE RESTRAINT ACT.

Miss RATHBONE: 44.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is now in a position to state whether any steps have been taken by any of the local governments to carry out the administrative measures recommended over four years ago by the Age of Consent Committee as essential for the effective administration of legislation in restraint of child marriage; and whether, in view of the fact
that the Sarda Child Marriage Restraint Act has now been nominally in force for three years and three months and is widely disregarded, he will take steps to secure from the Government of India a Report upon the question of what steps should be taken to secure the enforcement and, if necessary, the strengthening by amendment of the Act?

Sir V. WARRENDER: My right hon. Friend has not yet received the information for which he has asked regarding the administrative steps taken by local governments to give effect to the recommendations of the Age of Consent Committee. The whole question is under the consideration of the Government of India.

Miss RATHBONE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is the eleventh time spread over three years and three months on which I have put this question, and that the reply has invariably been that inquiries will be made in India? Will he represent to the Secretary of State the desirability of speeding up the reply, and will he also ask the Secretary of State whether he considers, in view of the fact that the Sarda Act was passed into law with the full consent and cordial sympathy of the Government, that the delay is likely to produce respect for law and order in India?

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAY AND CANAL COMMISSION.

Miss WARD: 46.
asked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to find time to give this House an opportunity to discuss legislation to abolish the Railway and Canal Commissioners?

The PRIME MINISTER: A Bill for the purpose of transferring the functions of the Railway and Canal Commission to other tribunals has been introduced in another place, and obtained a Second Reading there. I am not yet in a position to say when the Bill will reach this House.

Miss WARD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the decision to introduce legislation in another place has caused considerable uneasiness among the colliery undertakings who are expecting to send their case against amalgamation to the Railway and Canal Commission; and may the House have an assurance, that legislation will not be
introduced into this House until these undertakings have had the opportunity of placing their facts before the Commission?

The PRIME, MINISTER: My hon. Friend had better give me notice of that question.

Mr. CAPORN: Was the Bill introduced in another place by the Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, it is a Government Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

HOUSING (STANDBURN, FALKIRK).

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 47.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Department of Health have taken any action with regard to the housing and sanitary conditions in the mining village of Standburn, near Falkirk, where a large number of families are living in insanitary conditions and will he state why the Stirlingshire County Council has not taken action to enforce improvements in accordance with the reports prepared by the sanitary inspector some years ago?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): On 8th June representatives of the County Council of Stirling discussed the Housing situation at Standburn with officials of the Department of Health in Edinburgh. It was then decided that the county council should confer with the owners of the houses, Messrs. James Nimmo and Company. A meeting was held between county council representatives and Mr. James Nimmo on 6th July when Mr. Nimmo undertook to go into the question with his fellow directors. I understand that the county council has not yet been informed as to the result.

PRISON OFFICERS' PAY.

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: 49.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the prison officers' representative board will be given an opportunity of making suggestions before any final decision is reached with regard to the stabilisation of the pay of the Civil Service?

Mr. SKELTON: Yes, Sir.

COAL-PRODUCED MOTOR SPIRIT.

Mr. WALLACE: 57.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can say to what extent the Scottish coalfields are likely to benefit by the preference on motor spirit made from coal, which was recently announced by the Government; and whether the claims of Rosyth, now deprived of the normal use of the dockyard, will receive special consideration in this connection?

The SECRETARY for MINES-(Mr. Ernest Brown): It is not possible to estimate the extent to which any particular coalfield will benefit. The possibility of using Rosyth is a matter for the commercial interests which may contemplate developments to enable them to take advantage of the Government guarantee.

Mr. WALLACE: Would my hon. Friend impress on those interested in this matter the unique facilities which exist at Rosyth for commercial development?

Mr. BROWN: They will be aware of that, but no doubt the hon. Member's question and the answer will help to remind them of it.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is not Campbell-town much nearer to the business centres?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING (WEST HAM).

Mr. GROVES: 55.
asked the Minister of Health if he can state why his Department sanctions the erection of working-class dwellings in West Ham with no fireplaces in the bedrooms, whereas the Board of Control, which is under his supervision, advised the West Ham Council to instal radiators in addition to coal fires in the extension to the mental hospital at Goodmayes?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. ShakeTeare): The considerations affecting the heating and ventilation of a cottage and of a large institution are obviously different.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

FAT CATTLE.

Mr. KIMBALL: 58.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of live fat cattle imported into the United Kingdom
from Canada during the years ending 30th June, 1932, and 30th June, 1933, respectively?

Sir FREDERICK THOMSON (Treasurer of the Household): I have been asked to reply. The numbers were 18,806 and 16,115, respectively.

Mr. KIMBALL: 59.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the market price per live cwt. for fat cattle at the most convenient date, and the price on the same date in 1932?

Sir F. THOMSON: The average price per live cwt. of first quality fat cattle for the week ended 19th July at markets for which the Ministry obtains reports was 39s. 6d. as compared with 46s. 6d. for the corresponding week in 1932.

Mr. KIMBALL: Can the hon. Gentleman give any indication when the Government will take action to restore the prices to something like the 1932 level?

Sir F. THOMSON: That question does not arise out of the answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — FLYING-OFFICER FITZPATRICK (POLICE ACTION).

Brigadier-General SPEARS: 65.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that on 14th July, at about 3.40 a.m., Flying-Officer Fitzpatrick was assaulted by police officers of the Criminal Investigation Department in Gillingham Street, S.W.1; that these officers refused to take this man to a police officer on point duty to verify their statement that they were Scotland Yard men and not car bandits, as from their manner he had feared; that they used violence to get him into a car: and that, when they got him to Rochester Row police station and discovered their suspicions as to his action in walking down a public street carrying his suitcase were unfounded, they abused him before letting him go; and whether, in view of the conduct of the police officers in this matter, he will state what action he proposes to take?

Sir J. GILMOUR: My hon. and gallant Friend has already brought this case to my notice by letter. While I cannot entirely accept my hon. Friend's account of the incident, I would say at once how much the Commissioner of Police and I regret that it should have occurred. At
the same time, plain clothes police officers patrolling the streets in the night hours have a difficult duty to perform: and when, as in this case, a man carrying a suit case tries to hurry away at their approach, it cannot be said that they have not reasonable ground for suspicion. [HON. MEMBERS: Oh !"] I am merely stating the fact that when a police officer is on patrol—[HoN. MEMBERS: "In plain clothes."] They informed Mr. Fitzpatrick they were police officers, the sergeant displayed his warrant card, and he was invited to inspect the official sign on the police car, but he nevertheless continued to struggle to get away-A HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and in the end he had to be taken on foot to the police station nearby. Not until then did he give the explanation which the police had full power to require. There were no police on point duty in the neighbourhood at that hour. No more force was used that was necessary to overcome his resistance, which was violent. In the station he was given a, seat and a drink of water for which he asked. [HON. MEMBERS: "Very kind."] It was also pointed out to him that there would have been no need to bring him to the station if he had given his explanation in the first instance in reply to the reasonable enquiry put to him by the sergeant. I see no occasion for further action in the matter, but the Commissioner of Police is quite ready to depute an officer to see Mr. Fitzpatrick if that would be of any help.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: What evidence is there that Mr. Fitzpatrick hurried away at the approach of the police officers; and may I further ask how it comes that Mr. Fitzpatrick was not approached and questioned before the statement made by the Home Secretary to-day was submitted to the House?

Sir J. GILMOUR: All I know of this case is that I received a letter from the hon. and gallant Member. I immediately called for a report. I have given him the fullest answer, after investigation, and I have no reason to suppose that had Mr. Fitzpatrick behaved in the way that most people would do when they were approached by a police officer, who informed him that he was a police officer and who produced his police pass—which is not without evidence that he is a police officer—had he shown any inclina-
tion to give the reply which was necessary, none of this trouble need have occurred. I have expressed the regret of the Commissioner and of myself that this thing should have occurred, but I would beg the House to realise that police officers, particularly when on patrol duty in plain clothes, which is necessary, have to perform a very difficult task; and I trust that the House will realise, whatever sympathy they may have for the individual in a case like this, that it is undoubtedly within the rights of the police to act as they did. They gave the evidence which was required, and in my judgment there is nothing further to be said.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will tell the House why, when the case was brought to his notice, before arriving at the judgment that he has arrived at, no opportunity was given to the person treated in this way to appear either before himself or the Commissioner of Police?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am not aware that the aggrieved party has asked to come before me. On the contrary, I have not been approached. All I know is that he was told at. the police station that this need not have occurred had he given the information, and I have expressed the regret of the Commissioner and myself that this should have happened.

Mr. LANSBURY: The right hon. Gentleman has missed the point of my question. He has given the House a judgment on this case which is an ex parte judgment. What reason can he give the House and the country why in the case of this man, who according to the statements that are made has been grossly, ill-used, before arriving at the decisive judgment he has arrived at, he did not ask the man to come to see him, or ask Lord Trenchard to see him? Why should the man himself ask to be seen? He did not know the right hon. Gentleman was going to make this statement that he has made here to-day.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have investigated this case on the report—

Mr. LANSBURY: That is ex parte.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have said that if this gentleman desires to see me—

Mr. LANSBURY: No, that is not my point. Why did you not do it before?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Because I think there was no necessity.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is accustomed to come to conclusions after hearing a case only from one side—whether that is the usual course adopted by him in making inquiries into matters of this sort?

Sir J. GILMOUR: When I receive a complaint from any quarter, of course I call for a report, and, having judged that report, I come to my conclusions.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider appointing a committee of inquiry to investigate this very serious matter, as it affects the life and liberty of individual citizens?

HON. MEMBERS: No!

Captain BALFOUR: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that the police twisted this young man's arms behind his back, so that they were black and blue after he arrived at the police station, and that, according to the statement made to my hon. and gallant Friend and to myself by this young man, there is a grave disparity of statements between the police version, on which the right hon. Gentleman has based his answer, and this young man's statement; and, in view of the very important principle involved—more important than in its applicability to this particular case—he will have the matter further investigated?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have said that if this gentleman wishes the opportunity to see the Commissioner he will be perfectly ready to appoint an officer to see this gentleman. [HON. MEMBERS: "No !"] But beyond that I am not going to go.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: In the paper which I submitted to my right hon. Friend in the first instance it was said that this—

HON. MEMBERS: Move the Adjournment.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: May I move the Adjournment of the House to call attention to an urgent matter of public importance?

Mr. SPEAKER: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman submit that Motion to me at the end of Question Time?

Oral Answers to Questions — SUNDAY GREYHOUND-RACING.

Mr. GROVES: 66.
asked the Home Secretary if, in view of the omission of any recommendation by the Royal Commission on Lotteries and Betting concerning Sunday greyhound racing, it is to be taken as the policy of his Department to give a general approval to this practice?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As I stated in reply to a question in this House on "the 20th instant, the question of Sunday greyhound racing will not be overlooked, but will be considered in connection with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Lotteries and Betting. I would remind the hon. Member that, in paragraph 273 of their report, the Royal Commission on Lotteries and Betting recommended that the local authority should be required to fix two week days on which betting facilities might normally be provided at licensed courses in its area.

Oral Answers to Questions — METROPOLITAN POLICE FORCE (REORGANISATION).

Mr. COCKS: 67.
asked the Home Secretary what facts he has had brought to his notice with regard to each of the eight superintendents and five chief inspectors, whom it is proposed to retire from the Metropolitan Police Force, which have satisfied him that the continuance of such officer in his office would impair the efficiency of the police force?

Sir J. GILMOUR: In accordance with the terms of the general statement which I made to the House on the Second Reading of the Metropolitan Police Bill, the question of the retention of Superintendents and Chief Inspectors who are already entitled to full pension, has been fully reviewed in connection with the reorganisation of the force, and the Commissioner of Police, after a careful examination of each case, has satisfied me of the need, in the general interests of the efficiency of the force, for the retirement of the five Superintendents and eight Chief Inspectors in question. These officers are accordingly being required to
retire, as from the 19th January, 1934, under the provisions of Section 1 (2) of the Police Pensions Act, 1921.

Mr. COCKS: Has the right hon. Gentleman no facts about the personal conduct of these officers and have they individually given their consent under Section (2) of the Metropolitan Police Act, 1933?

Sir J. GILMOUR: It is not a question of personal consent on their part. It is a question of the review of each particular case and of a decision taken by the Commissioner on my authority.

Mr. LUNN: 68.
asked the Home Secretary how many persons over the age of 50 are employed at New Scotland Yard whether the new order for retirement at the age of 50 for officers of the Metropolitan police force will apply to all those employed at New Scotland Yard, including the commissioner and assistant commissioners; and if so, how many vacancies will be created as a, result?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Twenty-five members of the police staff and 43 of the civil staff of all ranks and grades employed in the Commissioner's office at New Scotland Yard are over the age of 50. The measures being taken under Section 1 (2) of the Police Pensions Act, 1921, affect at present only five Superintendents and eight Chief Inspectors in the whole force, and do not apply to the civil staff.

Mr. LUNN: If this rule is to apply to the police force, why does it not apply to the Army?

Mr. COVE: Why does it not apply to the Commissioner himself?

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRIA (LOAN).

Mr. A. BEVAN: 69.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the position of the international loan to Austria?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The preliminary arrangements are now completed, and it is intended to issue the loan at an early date.

Mr. BEVAN: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the French Government have agreed to make themselves partly responsible for this loan, and if it has not done so, will he carry
out the promise given by the Chancellor to the House that if the French Government does not, the British Government will not?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I think my answer covered that point when I said that the preliminary arrangements had been completed. I think that my right hon. Friend informed the House that he would only act in conjunction with the French Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES (BRITISH DEBT).

Mr. COVE: 70.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state what is the position of the negotiations regarding the American debt?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I would refer the hon. Member to the correspondence published last month in Command Paper 4353, and to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council to the right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) on 3rd July.

Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS: Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that His Majesty's Government will use their best endeavours to prevent a recurrence of eleventh hour suspense?

Oral Answers to Questions — EXCHANGE RATES (STERLING AND THE FRANC).

Mr. COVE: 71.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to restore the Gold Standard by anchoring the pound sterling to the gold franc; and, if so, will he state the reasons for this policy?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave yesterday to the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood).

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED WOMEN'S HOMES ASSOCIATION.

Miss CAZALET: 72.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will take steps to have published the Report of the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies upon the affairs of the United
Women's Homes Association, in order to prevent further losses by small shareholders or stockholders such as have been suffered by hundreds who have invested in the above association?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The report referred to is the report of an inspector appointed by the Chief Registrar to examine and report on the affairs of the association in question, pursuant to Section 50 of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893. Copies of the report have been sent to the association and to the members on whose application the inquiry was held, but it is not proposed to publish it.

Miss CAZALET: In view of the very serious nature of this report, will the hon. Gentleman consider having it published, or taking the necessary power in future to see that this type of thing does not occur again?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Any suggestion made by my hon. Friend will be given due weight. The report is over 500 pages long, and it is not usual to publish these reports at the taxpayers' expense, a copy having been sent to all concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — TURKEY (BRITISH SUBJECT'S TRIAL).

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: (by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Captain C. M.,Wray of steamship "Bactria" who has been sentenced, at Istanbul, to 15 months 22 days and a fine of £70 for alleged smuggling of spirits, and is he satisfied that guilt has been established and that adequate steps were taken to protect the interests of a British subject?

Mr. EDEN: My attention has been drawn to this case, which is being watched by His Majesty's Ambassador in Turkey. Captain Wray has now appealed, and the appeal has not yet been heard. I cannot, therefore, comment on the verdict, but I am satisfied that everything possible has been, and is being, done to protect Captain Wray's interests.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Prime Minister what is the order of business
for to-clay, after the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, and for to-morrow?

The PRIME MINISTER: After the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, we shall consider the Lords Amendments to the Local Government and other officers' Superannuation (Temporary Provisions) Bill, which are either of a drafting character or agreed between the parties concerned. It is also proposed to take the Motion to approve the Additional Import Duties (No. 15) Order, which is exempted business, and the three Gas Orders and three Electricity Orders.
To-morrow, after the Appropriation Bill has been disposed of, it is proposed to take the Motion to approve the Milk Marketing Scheme, and dispose of outstanding business, including the Lords Amendments to the Sea-Fishing Industry Bill and any other Amendments to Bills which may be received from another place.

Mr. LANSBURY: Does that include the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: No.

FLYING-OFFICER FITZPATRICK (POLICE ACTION).

Brigadier-General SPEARS: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the circumstances under which three officers of the Criminal Investigation Department assaulted Flying-Officer Fitzpatrick in Gillingham Street, on 14th July.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the circumstances under which three officers of the Criminal Investigation Department assaulted Flying-Officer Fitzpatrick in Gillingham Street on 14th July.
It appears to me that, in deciding whether I can allow this Motion, I have to consider many points, aria one of them is whether this question can be discussed at an early date. As it appears to me that it can equally well be discussed on the Motion for the Adjournment on Friday, and probably more usefully, I cannot allow the Motion.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: May I give notice that I will raise the question on the Adjournment Motion on Friday?

Later—

Mr. SPEAKER: In giving my Ruling in reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Carlisle (Brigadier-General Spears) when he asked leave to Move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, I am afraid I misled the House. I said, quite rightly, that this question could be raised at an early date, and I gave as an instance the Adjournment on Friday. On second thoughts I have come to the conclusion that the question could equally be raised on the Appropriation Bill to-day or tomorrow without any Motion for the Adjournment of the House at all, so, if the House thinks fit, it can debate the question on the Appropriation Bill.

Sir MURDOCH MCKENZIE WOOD: If this discussion is taken on the Appropriation Bill or the Adjournment, it will not be possible to take a vote of the House, and on a matter of this kind the House ought to have an opportunity, if it so desires, to take a vote.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask whether there is anything to prevent us from voting against the Consolidated Fund Bill if we so desire in order to show our disapproval of the action of the Home Secretary, or anything else?

Mr. SPEAKER: In reply to the hon. Gentleman who asked me whether we could take a vote, very many questions are raised on the Consolidated Fund Bill which interest Members extremely, and on which they would like to take a vote, but they do not take a vote.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: In thanking you, Sir, for what you have said, may I give notice that I will take advantage of your Ruling and raise the matter this evening?

RESTORATION OF THE CONSTITUTION

3.50 p.m.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal the Parliament Act, 1911.
This is a Bill for the restoration of the Constitution under which we were all
brought up—a Constitution which existed for hundreds of years. This country is governed by King, Lords and Commons, those three powers each checking and balancing one another. I may point out that it is the English Constitution, and not the Scottish, Welsh, or Irish Constitution. It was very seriously impinged upon by the Parliament Act, 1911, which practically put this country in the position of being ruled by a single-Chamber Government. This Constitution, with its three powers checking one another, saved England for hundreds of years from anything in the nature of a dictatorship. We only had one dictatorship in all those hundreds of years—for 10 years in the time of the Protector. It was a very efficient 10 years, but it was a, very unhappy England. One can imagine what England would be like if we were under the iron rule, say, of the opinion of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) and of the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor). It would not be a very comfortable country to live in. The balance of the three powers guaranteed our liberty in a way that made us the envy of all the peoples of the world. There were attempts to usurp power. An English king once did it, and it cost him his head, because he endeavoured to infringe upon the powers of Parliament.
The only other public guarantee that we had was our judiciary. Our judges represent the majesty of the law. They are above even the King; they are above the Commons; they are above all of us, because they are a, permanent institution, which cannot be removed except on the petition of both Houses of Parliament and with the assent of the King. They have time and again stood between the subject and the tyranny of the Executive, and I may say, incidentally, that 1 and all other good citizens are very much shocked at the treatment which has been meted out to them, and the frivolous attitude of the politicians in this House and outside towards them. The politician is the creature of a day, the creature of accident, but the judges represent the dignity and majesty of the law. They are specially picked men of great experience, and they should be absolutely independent financially, as they are legally. A grave mistake has been made in regard to them.
This balanced Constitution was, as I have said, upset by the Parliament Act, but the Parliament Act in its Preamble said specifically that the powers of the new Second Chamber were going to be defined. The Preamble contains these words;
Whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation.
That was practically an undertaking to the people of England, and of the Empire generally, that such a Measure would be introduced and that a reformed Second Chamber would be brought into being. It was a promise that was made, and Mr. Asquith himself said in the same Session of Parliament that it was a matter that would not brook delay. He repeated that, and said that he was determined to bring in a scheme of that kind, and so did the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who also, in a joint manifesto with Mr. Bonar Law in 1918, gave a pledge that they would make it their business to provide for a proper Second Chamber, with the powers that a Second Chamber should have. No one, however, has done that, and we are now in a position which depreciates very much the power and prestige of the House of Commons, because there can be no doubt that Parliamentary institutions are suffering from the fact that we have not the balance which we used to have. I would also mention that only the other day the Lord President of the Council himself pointed out in the Press the grave danger that an Emergency Powers Act might be passed, giving an extremist Government of the day power to alter and destroy all the fundamentals of our economics and civilisation, and to institute a tyranny such as we have never seen in this country. All that might be rushed through in terms of some Emergency Powers Act, and we should have no legal means of stopping it.
I would ask for the support of the Labour party especially, and, in view of the above-quoted statement of the Lord President of the Council, I feel that I am entitled to ask for his support also, and the support of all his party. If, through some obscure cause, an election took place and an extremist party got into power, there would be nothing to stop
them from acting in such a manner. It is the duty of the House of Commons to protect the freedom of the country by putting us back into the status quo until we have created a properly reconstituted House of Lords. Above all, the party opposite ought to support this Measure, in view of what might happen if they found themselves driven into such a position by their own extremists. An immediate result would be a tremendous uprising of Fascism. I do not want to see Fascism in this country, or anything in the nature of Hitlerism. Hitlerism is a middle-class movement, and I would point out to hon. Gentlemen opposite that there are in this country far more middle-class people than there are of any other class. Some hon. Members do not seem to be aware of that, but that is a fact. Therefore, I would urge them to support this proposal in the interests of good government and of the Constitution of this country, so that we may at least have a Second Chamber with full powers to protect us from such dangers. It may not he the Second Chamber that we desire. It may have weaknesses. Our previous Second Chamber had many weaknesses and faults, but at least it gave us the balanced Constitution under which this country reached its great eminence. I submit very respectfully that this is a Motion which ought to be granted unanimously by the House, because it would greatly strengthen the institutions of Parliament, and would guarantee in time to come our liberties as we had them in the past.

Mr. SPEAKER: Having listened to the hon. and learned Member's speech, I have come to the conclusion that this is not a suitable subject for a Motion under what is known as the Ten Minutes Rule, and, therefore, I shall put the Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned." put, and agreed to.

TITHE AMENDMENT

3.58 p.m.

Mr. SPENS: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the provisions for the recovery of tithe rentcharge in England and Wales.
The object of this Bill is to render more workable and to extend the existing machinery and the existing legislation for
dealing with really hard cases. As hon. Members know, there is in many parts of the country a growing movement against the payment of tithe, in the form of passive resistance, and many regrettable incidents have occurred. We have seen auction sales made completely abortive; we have seen agents of tithe owners making forays under cover of dawn—reminiscent of border forays in the Middle Ages—rounding up valuable stock, putting them into motor cars, and carrying them long distances away for the purpose of sale; and, what is even more serious, we have had in many parishes a growing feeling between the church and those people who do not belong to the church but have to pay tithe.
Of course, the general depression in the agricultural industry has, no doubt, created conditions under which many people feel it very hard to have to pay a fixed sum for tithe, irrespective of good season or bad season. With those general conditions, this Bill does not propose to deal, nor would it be proper for such a Bill to deal in any shape or form with them, but there are still, and always have been, particularly hard cases, and there has been, and is, under existing legislation, machinery for dealing with those hard cases, but machinery which is not very operative owing to various inconveniences. Under the Tithe Act, 1891, there is at the present moment machinery for dealing with hard cases where a man is subject to an excessively high tithe, but the machinery requires an application to the county court. It requires the tithe-payer to prove that there is due from him tithe in excess of two-thirds of the annual value of his holding as assessed under Income Tax Schedule B, and in many cases that machinery is not made any use of, because payers object to making an application to the court. When they get there, the remission is so slight that it is not worth having, and in many cases owner-occupiers are not assessed at all under Schedule B, but under Schedule D, and there is no existing machinery for dealing with hard cases which arise under Schedule D.
The Bill simply proposes that, as regards the payers who are assessed under Schedule B, it should not be necessary to make any application to a court at all, that there should be an automatic remission, and that the amount of the remis-
sion should be the excess of the amount due for tithe of one-half instead of two-thirds of the annual value of the holding under Schedule B. Then, as regards those assessed under Schedule D, new machinery has got to be devised, and it is proposed that the new machinery should be, that wherever the amount due for tithe exceeds one-half of the net amount of profits and gains at which a farmer or smallholder is assessed under Schedule D, there should be an automatic remission of the excess of the amount due for tithe over the one-half of the net amount of profits and gains. Where there is no profit to a man, but losses—and those are particularly hard cases, of which there are many hundreds throughout the country to-day—the payment should be reduced to one-tenth of the amount due. In order to preserve the rights of tithe owners, it is proposed to maintain their rights as at present of being represented at proceedings dealing with assessments of tithe payers under Schedules B and D which will 'affect their rights. In addition the machinery under existing Acts require some minor alterations. It is impossible to estimate in pounds, shillings and pence what the proposals would amount to, but it is hoped the result would be that not only would these hard cases, instead of refusing to pay altogether, now pay the lesser amount which alone would be due in their hard circumstances, but also that persons who can pay, but who are unwilling to pay because they want to lend support to the hard cases, would have less reason for adopting that type of attitude. We believe that if these small amendments were made, and this existing machinery was made workable, the result would be that more tithe would be paid, and paid more willingly. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to introduce this Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Spens, Mr. Turton, Sir Joseph Lamb, Sir Basil Peto and Mr. Maitland.

TITHE AMENDMENT BILL,

"to amend the provisions for the recovery of tithe rentcharge in England and Wales," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 7th November, and to be printed. [Bill 162.]

NATIONALITY OF JEWS

4.5 p.m.

Commander OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to promote and extend opportunities of citizenship for Jews resident outside the British Empire.
I am not personally a Jew. I do not happen to possess one drop, so far as I know, of Jewish blood in my veins, but I hope that I do not require to be a Jew to hate tyranny anywhere in the world. I hope I only require English birth and breeding to loathe the oppression of a minority anywhere. It, is un-English, it is caddish to bully a minority, and it is the duty of this House to consider the circumstances of people who are no longer citizens of a State which we recognise. I am not anti-German, and many of us in this House are almost pro-German. But I was one of the few people on this side of the House who, after the War, pleaded for fairplay for Germany. I felt that the Great German people had been misled by their leaders. I thought it was a terrible humiliation that the French should have sent black troops and quartered them in the house of Goethe, and I wanted a return to Germany of some of her territory. I also wanted an equalisation of armaments in the future for the German people.
And who altered me towards Germany? It was the German Jews who pleaded best for Germany, who day in and day out, tried to get England to be fair to Germany. And those citizens of Germany, the most eloquent and the most patriotic, are now being driven out. Germany is not driving out her cutthroats or her blackguards; she has selected the cream of her culture and suppressed it. She has admitted—and this is the point—that the Jews stand higher in the realms of art and of affairs, and for their superiority they must be punished. She has even turned upon her most glorious citizen—Einstein. It is impertinent for me to praise a man of that eminence. The most eminent men in the world admit that he is the most eminent. But there was something beyond mere eminence in the case of Professor Einstein. He was beyond any achievements in the realm of science. He stood out as the supreme example of the selfless intellectual. And to-day Einstein is
without a home. He had to write his name in a visitors' book in England, and when he came to write his address, he put "Without any." The Huns have stolen his savings. The road-hog and racketeer of Europe have plundered his place. They have even taken away his violin. A man who more than any other approximated to a citizen of the world without a house ! How proud we must be that we have afforded him a shelter temporarily at Oxford to work, and long may the tides of tyranny beat in vain against these shores.
All I can say is, thank God the Germans did not win the last War. They might have treated England as they have treated the Jews to-day. They would, and it is the same spirit of frightfulness which overwhelmed small Belgium, and which is now turned upon a helpless handful for extermination. How easy it is to persecute minorities. What would happen to the Germans in our midst if we started persecuting them? I hope we never will; it would be like shooting pheasants sitting. And now how are we to help the Jews in Germany? They have been made outlaws and aliens of the German State. I wish the League of Nations could send a commission of inquiry to Germany or supply passports. Because if there ever were a time when League ought to relax the rigid interpretation or narrow laws, and adjust these to the true spirit of its purposes, it is to-day. But if that League does not act, there is another league of nations which should—the British Empire. We are a real league of nations, and we should stand by Jewry in its trouble. We have been granted the mandate of Palestine, and to help to fulfil the Messianic miracle there.
My Bill is designed to promote and extend citizenship in Palestine for Jews deprived of citizenship elsewhere. I cannot in the few moments to-day detail the Clauses of this Measure, but the Bill will prove to be a practical extension and confirmation of British duty. For we must stand by a persecuted minority. The Jews in the British Empire stood by England in the War in her fight for freedom. We must stand by their side in their fight for freedom, too. I think the only Member of this House who became, or was subsequently, a V.C. was a Jew. In the village where I live there is only
one Jewish family, and in the entire district where I live there is only one mother who lost three sons fighting in the War. They were the sons of that Jewish mother. She lost three fighting in the battles of the British Empire, and when I was asked whether or not I would subscribe to a Cross in the district, I said, "Only if we put up a tribute to those Jewish fallen, too." I have seen English blood and Jewish blood spilt on many fronts, and I have noticed that the colour of the blood is the same whether it comes from the veins of the Jew or the Englishman, the Hebrew or the Briton. It was not long ago that Germany called a certain little Army "contemptible" and that contemptible Army lived to beat Germany with the support of the British Empire. I am going to prophesy that the new contemptibles—the Jew contemptibles—are going to win with the same support.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Commander Oliver Locker-Lampson, Rear-Admiral Sueter, Viscount Elmley, Sir Wilfrid Sugden, Mr. Janner, Mr. Holford Knight, Mr. Hannon, and Mr. W. J. Stewart.

NATIONALITY OF JEWS BILL,

"to promote and extend opportunities of citizenship for Jews resident outside the British Empire," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 7th November, and to be printed. [Bill 163.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Service of Process (Justices) Bill,
Aberdeen Harbour (Rates) Order Confirmation Bill,
Leith Harbour and Docks Order Confirmation Bill,
Grampian Electricity Supply Order Confirmation Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Street) Bill, without Amendment.
Administration of Justice (Scotland)
Bill, with an Amendment. Sea-Fishing Industry Bill, with Amendments.

Amendments to—

Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Amendment Bill [Lords],
2607
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Maidstone and Stockton-on-Tees) Bill [Lords],
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Wath, Swinton, and District Joint Hospital District) Bill [Lords],
Knutsford Light and Water Bill [Lords],
Adelphi Estate Bill [Lords],
The Maidens and Coombe Urban District Council Bill [Lords],
Middlesbrough Corporation Bill [Lords],
Bootle Corporation Bill [Lords],
Wigan Corporation Bill [Lords],
Canterbury Extension Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to impose penalties for the use, attempted use and possession of firearms and imitation firearms in certain cases, to amend certain provisions of the Larceny Act, 1916, relating to offensive weapons or instruments, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid."[Firearms and Imitation Firearms (Criminal Use) Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to consolidate, with amendments the enactments relating to authorities for the purposes of local government in England and Wales exclusive (except in relation to certain matters) of London [Local Government Bill [Lords.]

SHEFFIELD EXTENSION BILL.

That they agree to the consequential Amendments made by the Commons to the Sheffield Extension Bill, without Amendment.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Lords Amendment to be considered To-morrow.

SEA-FISHING INDUSTRY BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and be to printed. [Bill 164.]

FIREARMS AND IMITATION FIREARMS (CRIMINAL USE) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 165.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 166.]

ORDER OF THE DAY.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

ECONOMIC SITUATION.

4.19 p.m.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: I want to raise two questions, first of all, the tragic significance of the failure of the World Economic Conference and, secondly, the position in which this country is left as a result of that failure. I do not think it is necessary to remind the House at any length of the way in which both this country and the world have been keyed up to the vital importance and necessity of some agreement being arrived at the World Economic Conference. We have been told that it is the way out of chaos, and that it is essential to come to some agreement to avoid ruin, and various phrases of that sort have been used which have impressed upon us the fact that we are not nationally self-sufficient and that we cannot cure the evil of unemployment without some form of agreement with other countries. May I remind the House of one or two significant remarks which have been made by Members of the Government? The Chancellor of the Exchequer on 21st February, speaking at Edinburgh, said:
If we are to get back anything like our former prosperity and see employment once more increase, then we have got to have co-operation with other countries that will allow the foreigner to trade with us once more.
Speaking in this House on 22nd March, he said:
We cannot be satisfied with pious resolutions but must take joint and wise action to get some actual mitigation of the evils from which we are all suffering."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd March, 1933; col. 390, Vol. 276.]
Perhaps the most significant expression which was given the widest publicity throughout the world was the final sentences of the Preparatory Commission in the draft annotated agenda, where it says:
Failure in this critical undertaking threatens the world wide adoption of ideals
of national self-sufficiency which cut unmistakably athwart the lines of economic development. Such a choice would shake the whole system of international finance to its foundations, the standard of living would be lowered and the social system as we know it could hardly survive. These developments, if they occur, will be the result not of any inevitable natural law but of the failure of human will and intelligence to devise the necessary guarantees of political and economic and international order. The responsibility of the Governments is clear and inescapable.
We believe that that statement sets out in none too exaggerated terms the vital importance which attaches to this Conference. The joint statement of the Prime Minister and President Roosevelt in April said they were impressed by the vital necessity of assuring international agreements for the realisation of their purpose in the interests of the peoples of all countries. I think those quotations are sufficient to remind the House of the expectation that was aroused throughout the world and throughout that great mass of unemployed persons of over 30,000,000 in the world as regards the possibility and, of course, the dangers of failure in such an enterprise. We have stated—and we have been accused of pessimism—that in our view failure was inevitable because of the unwillingness of the Governments of the world to face the real issues which they ought to have faced.
The failure, in our view, is not due to the attitude of any particular country. Many people have sought to accuse the United States of sabotaging the World Economic Conference, and it seems to us that a precisely similar attitude has been taken up by practically all countries when they come up against some matter which they consider of vital interest to themselves. There has not been, as we see it, any real co-operation. There has only been an attempt by one country, or one group of countries, to try to make everyone else fall in with plans which they themselves think are most suitable for their own areas, whether it is the United States and questions of currency, or the block of gold countries and the question of the gold standard, or ourselves and tariffs and quotas and restrictions, everyone else's being bad and ours being the perfect sort, or whether it is the expansionist policy of public works.
We believe and always have believed that it is wholly impossible to maintain a fiercely competitive system and at the
same time to bring about international co-operation. Exactly the same thing has happened as regards the Disarmament Conference. The competition between different countries has made it impossible to lead to any real co-operation. No one is prepared to sacrifice the things that they considered important for themselves. Indeed, we believe it is inherent in the whole system of industrial organisation under which the world is suffering at the present time. This is not the first time that the Government have said, "Just wait for the conference and all will be well," and, when it fails, turned round and said that of course, it did not very much matter. It was not of the greatest importance. Exactly the same thing happened with the Ottawa Conference. There was a statement made by the President of the Federation of Chambers of Commerce which was quoted in the House to which the Dominions Secretary said he gave his complete adherence. It was:
If Ottawa failed to take the necessary steps to enable us to give a lead it would bring chaos. The outlook would indeed be black.
I think everyone now realises that Ottawa did not make any very great contribution to the solution of the world's difficulties. Indeed, there are many people who take the view that the embarkation upon Ottawa before the World Economic Conference was one of the factors which led to the World Economic Conference failing. The House will, perhaps, remember the letter written on 25th October, 1932, by Sir Walter Layton to the Prime Minister when he retired from the Preparatory Commission, setting out his views as regards the difficulties which would inevitably be raised by the conclusion of the Ottawa Agreements before the World Economic Conference. Now we find that, not only has Ottawa done no good, but complaints are arising all over the House because it is said to be doing very much damage to the farmers of this country. Of the policy which I understand we are encouraging of bilateral trade agreements, a very good example was given yesterday. A question was asked on the bi-lateral agreement between France and Spain, and we were informed that representations would be made immediately, as it was going to affect some of our trade. Presumably bi-lateral agreements with ourselves are
good agreements but bi-lateral agreements between other countries are dangerous things which must be watched carefully and interfered with where necessary.
We believe that it is really the refusal of our own and other Governments to face the completely altered circumstances of world trade which has rendered the World Economic Conference so futile. It appears that Mr. Roosevelt has at least realised that circumstances have changed and that some new means have got to be devised of coping with the changed circumstances, not merely a return to some fiscal policy which has always failed in the past but some definite new action has to be taken. We are not here witnessing a mere trade depression as the result of the old-fashioned idea of the trade cycle, although it seems to us that the Government, especially in speeches during the last few days, is trying to convince the people that we are. Anyone who makes an examination of the recent statistical figures as regards world population and world productivity must be convinced that productivity has far outstripped the growth of population and is presenting a new problem to the world. This enormously increased productive power which, of course, has been accompanied or brought about by mechanisation and the elimination of man-power in the productive processes, has permanently restricted, under the existing system, the consuming power of vast masses of the population of the world and, accompanied with the difficulties of retaining or getting markets, there has been a most intense drive for reduction of wages, reduction of services, reduction of taxation, reduction of local and central expenditure, and that in its turn, of course, just as rationalisation has in the industrial field, has restricted still further the consuming power of various people.
It is not only that difficulty that has arisen. We by our own action, by our exports in the past, have contracted our own markets at present and are still further contracting them for the future. We have developed industries ourselves in countries which have now become the most fierce competitors for the neutral international markets. That intensive competition, for which we ourselves have been largely responsible, has meant that we have less and less opportunity for
expanding in the export markets of the world, and as a result we find international competitive capitalists of the world fighting for those restricted markets, and fighting indeed literally, when one comes to Japan with Manchuria and Jehol, and fighting figuratively in the many cases we have stated from time to time in questions in this House of the difficulties of our exporters in this country. We believe that to attempt to deal with a problem of that sort, without considering even the adoption of some completely new technique, is hopeless, and it is equally hopeless to try and solve it internationally unless there is a willingness among the nations to sacrifice their national interests to the international good. As long as they cling to their own particular national hobby, whatever it may be, and refuse to give way upon it, we do not see how you are ever to get a solution of the difficulty.
Not only is there the difficulty of markets, but there is the other difficulty, which still remains and which will become more and more emphasised, of the load of international debt which has been built up, and to which the World Economic Conference bas supplied no sort of solution. That debt in itself is the natural outcome of capitalist exploitation of different countries one by another. You have built up this great system of creditor and debtor countries, and the attempted transfer of commodities to satisfy those debts or the interest upon them is one of the things which is now blocking the further expansion of world trade. Just as tariffs, restrictions and prohibitions are the day-to-day weapon of the international capitalist in order to try and preserve his own home market for himself, so this other feature of the interest payment is the result of his activities in the past. It is true that when trade gets bad the international industrialists and the national industrialists are prepared to talk about working together, or recreating confidence, or greasing the wheels of industry, or removing the blockage to trade, or whatever it may be, but when it comes actually to doing something which sacrifices the competitive power in a nation they are not prepared to take any definite steps. That is what has happened with regard to the World Economic Conference. If they had been able to agree completely to wipe out the whole of international in-
debtedness instead of making, as we have done in this country in the past year, elaborate arrangements by which the international financiers can continue to draw their tribute from the half-starving populations of the world, as in the case of Austria, they might indeed have made a great beginning in removing the blockages to international trade.
We are met with the suggestion that by means of the re-creation of confidence we shall get an increase of spending power. I cannot imagine anything more likely to stop confidence than the meeting of this long-expected Conference, which everybody said was so vital to the future of the world, and the breakdown which has occurred during the last few days. The theory of the return of confidence may be a good one to apply to the rich man who has money saved and who by the creation of confidence may be made to spend it. One appreciates that the theory may apply, therefore, to the luxury trade and to the capital goods trade, but it is not much good telling the unemployed man that his spending power will rise by a re-creation of confidence. He has 24s. to spend upon himself, his wife and family, and however confident he may he, he cannot spend any more unless he steals it.
So that the first necessity for the increase of spending power is not, we venture to suggest, any attempt to release the hoardings of the rich man, but is the attempt whtch is being made in the United States of America--whether it will succeed or not we shall see--to re-create the spending power of the working population of the country. That is the new factor in President Roosevelt's programme which at least seems to hold out some sort of hope for a solution of the problem of distribution. The time when we can merely keep the population of this country employed by producing luxury articles or producing capital goods for export, as we did at the end of the nineteenth century,I believe, has gone forever. Some fresh method of distribution will have to be devised,. and I do not see how it is to be devised either by the Government sitting still, or going about the country making speeches to say that the crisis is over. I hope that members of the Government will remember that the moment the crisis is over there are a great many cuts to be put back, and the
people who were led to think that those cuts were due to the crisis, the moment it is suggested to them that the crisis is over, will make a very rapid demand for the putting back of those sums of money taken from the wage earners, the salary earners and the unemployed.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can tell us the policy of the Government as far as one particular point is concerned. Do they intend to try and increase the home markets' consuming power by raising wages and salaries, or do they intend to try and increase the export market by keeping down the prices of export commodities by keeping wages down and hours long, because those two matters must be approached in a completely different way. It is true that Mr. Roosevelt is trying to do both. He is trying to raise his salaries and wages and to shorten his hours internally, and then, by a currency depreciation, he is trying to get the beilefit of cheap exports as well. I think that it will very soon be apparent that those processes cannot go on side by side. He will never be able to force up his wages and force down his hours sufficiently quickly to overtake the rise in his prices, nor will he be able to preserve, if he tries to do it, the export market of America.
I think that as regards the activities of our own Government, the most cruel and cynical statement in regard to them was the one made last night during the Debate on the Mines Vote, when the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Slater) said that he considered the launching of the hydrogenation programme as the greatest achievement of the Government except the Conversion Loan. If one compares for a moment that activity with the sort of efforts which are being made in America to deal with the situation one realises how futile and fatuous are the attempts of the existing Government. We believe that, although Mr. Roosevelt's solution will not be a permanent one, it may be one which will assist in the inevitable transition which is going on throughout the world. Anything that can be done at the present time to relieve the terrible conditions of the workers of the world is something which will naturally be welcomed by us. He will find, in our view, that his attempt must fail unless he can go to such a point that he makes wages rise and hours shorten
so as substantially to limit profits, and when he does that he will be met with the necessity for expropriating private ownership. Whether that will be the end, or whether the end will be failure, of course, nobody can possibly tell. But we are anxious to know whether the Government in this country are setting out upon a policy of continuing low wages, low taxes, economies, that is to say, and low social services in order to keep down the prices of export commodities, or whether they are intending to embark upon a home expansionist policy in order to try to expand the home market to take the place of the lost export markets. Those must be two completely definite and distinct policies. We have not yet had a statement from the Government as to which, if either, of those policies they intend to follow.
I think that the attitude of the Government on public works shows their state of mind upon that subject matter. The Prime Minister, on the 7th November, 1932, in this House in the course of a Debate, and speaking on private works and not public works, said:
Again, do not let anyone imagine that, after this thinking aloud on my part, questions may be put down to-morrow and the day after asking what the progress has been. Everyone who has been at this kind of work knows that progress lags,—
This was some eight or nine months ago, and it is still lagging
but that, as long as the push is behind it, the moment comes when the results appear almost instantaneously. That is the method which we are going to follow.— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th November, 1932; cols. 50 and 51, Vol. 270.]
We should be interested to know precisely what the push has done, and what the following of that method as regards private works have produced. As regards the question of public works the next important statement was that of the Prime Minister and Mr. Roosevelt in April, 1933, when they said:
The Central Banks should by concerted action provide adequate expansion of credit and every means should be used to get the credit thus created into circulation. Enterprise must be stimulated by creating conditions favourable to business recovery and Governments can contribute by the development of appropriate programmes of capital expenditure.
When the World Economic Conference was in its early days the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
on 14th June, made the following statement to the Conference in the discussion on the question of public works:
The question whether Governments can actively assist in this matter by schemes of governmental expenditure will also require consideration. The United Kingdom delegation will be very ready to examine with other delegate' s how far employment can be stimulated by such action….
The extent to which employment can be stimulated by Government expenditure necessarily depends upon the circumstances of each country and in particular upon the extent to which opportunities are still open for self-supporting schemes—which in turn must depend upon the extent to which in each country such schemes have already been promoted in the past.
It is extremely difficult to know what is a self-supporting scheme. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would say that the building of a secondary school is a self-supporting scheme. Presumably it is not because it does not make money, but I imagine that he was using the phrase "self-supporting scheme" there to mean one which was necessary for the welfare of the country in which the building took place. The important point to notice as regards this matter is that this question of public works is not being discussed in the void simply as a thing in itself but as part of an expansionist policy, as a means of getting the available credit into circulation. It is quite idle to look at the problem from the point of view whether public work per se is worth while or not. Having all this amount of available credit, how are you going to get it into circulation? That wars the problem with which the Prime Minister and Mr. Roosevelt were dealing and it was the problem of the right hon. Gentleman in the speech that I have quoted. It is a point of view which the Government, from the statements they have made in this House from time to time, do not seem to have appreciated. They look at public works themselves as they might do in a time of high interest rates and at a time when an expansive programme was not being carried out and deflation was actively being carried out in the monetary field. The result in the two cases is necessarily completely different.
The President of the 'Board of Trade made a speech at the World Economic Conference on the 13th July which surprised a good many people. Certainly it surprised the Prime Minister. I do not
think he could have read the speech, judging from the answer that he gave in this House. He said that the statement made was directed primarily to the proposal made by the International Labour Office that facilities should be given for the issue of international loans to finance schemes of public works in Eastern Europe. The statement may have been dealing partially with that subject, but that was not what the statement said. The statement of the President of the Board of Trade said:
We have formed our opinion, and it may be of interest to the Commission to know why we hold the view, that at present nothing would be gained in our attempting to extend our public works programme.
Not in Eastern Europe, unless the right hon. Gentleman has become a member of a Government of Eastern Europe, of which I have no knowledge:
We have in recent years devoted one hundred million pounds to schemes of this kind. The result has been that on the average for every million sterling expended we have employed 2,000 men directly and 2,000 men indirectly. In our view it is unduly expensive, and it is an experiment which we are not going to repeat. We have terminated our scheme for dealing with the unemployed by way of capital expenditure works and we shall not re-open these schemes, no matter what may be done elsewhere.
That, I suppose, is what you call international co-operation in an expansionist way.
I can say emphatically that for our purposes we are abandoning this policy once and for all, and we do not think we can usefully participate in any international scheme of a similar nature.
Again, the right hon. Gentleman evinced a desire to extend the hand of friendship to Eastern Europe.
If we are asked as a capital market to provide money or raise loans for this purpose, I think it is only right that I should inform the Commission that we could not do so.
Not only are we determined not to carry out the expansionist policy advocated in the Commission itself but we are apparently determined to do what we can to prevent other people from getting assistance from us to carry it out. That speech was followed by the passage which I have quoted from the Prime Minister, to which he added the words that as regards public works in this country the policy of His Majesty's Government is in no way altered, and that we are providing or assisting to provide finance for schemes of a remunerative or necessary character.
What I want to know is, what do the Government think are schemes of a necessary character. It entirely depends on what the necessity is. Is the necessity to try and get credit into circulation, or is the necessity to disregard that altogether and simply to look at the scheme as a scheme and nothing else? I rather gather from what has been said before that it is the latter view which the Government are taking and not the view which the Prime Minister and Mr. Roosevelt took in the conversations which they had at Washington. We believe that it is the former view, the necessity of an expansionist credit policy that makes public works schemes of all sorts so essential at the present time, and it is because the Government have entirely failed to recognise that factor, that public works schemes are only part of a concerted scheme, that they have so completely failed to cooperate in this effort which was going to be attempted, possibly, if we had agreed, by other countries at the World Economic Conference.
We are not suggesting that public works or an expansionist scheme are per se any solution for the problem of unemployment, but we do say that you can by these means help to mitigate the immediate evils if you can speed up your circulation of credit. There are apparently no other means available. We may be told that there is hydrogenation. What is £2,500,000, to be spent in one and a-half years? That is not worth discussing when we are dealing with the question of the circulation of credit. It is very praiseworthy to get £2,500,000 spent, but when we are dealing with a problem of this magnitude that expenditure is not even a fleabite towards a solution. We believe that President Roosevelt is on the right lines so far as he is concerned in the shortening of hours and the raising of wages. That is an essential step to be taken, in association with public works, if you are going to try to solve matters along present lines.
We desire to put before the House a whole-hearted condemnation of His Majesty's Government for what we believe to be their very large share in the failure of the World Economic Conference—I know that there were other Governments that were difficult as well, and every Government must bear its
share of the blame—and also for their failure, as we believe, to realise that there are quite new circumstances in the industrial difficulties of the present time which cannot be dealt with by the old method of merely having some fiscal arrangement or another, or having bilateral agreements as to trade, or anything else of that kind. Some imagination and enterprise has to be exercised in devising completely new remedies. We believe also that the Government are engaged at the present time upon a tragic attempt to mislead the country into the belief that the failure of the World Economic Conference really does not matter, that it is not a question of any great importance, because prosperity is round the corner and there are signs of the crisis being over. Time will show whether the crisis is over or whether what we are experiencing now is merely a slight temporary boom, which one is always apt to get. It is no use anyone attempting to prophesy as regards that. We are satisfied that even within the existing system, if the Government thought fit and if they had the enterprise of Mr. Roosevelt they could do a great deal by an expansionist policy to assist the workers in what may be the very tragic winter of 1933.

4.54 p.m.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not propose to follow the hon. and learned Member in the earlier part of his speech, in which he took a general survey of the work of the Economic Conference. I have already had an opportunity of addressing the House on that subject, and I sympathise too deeply with the complaints from back bench Members which have recently found expression as to the inordinate share in the time of our Debates occupied by ex-Ministers, to venture on this occasion to detain the House for more than a comparatively short time. I will only say this in regard to the Conference, that its sad fate is only too clear. The valedictory speeches will be made in a few days from now, and I would suggest that possibly in those speeches use might be made of a quotation from an old English play, in which one of the characters says:
Come, let us fall into each other's arms and vow an eternal misery together.
I would ask whether the Prime Minister's statement which was made when we were
discussing in advance the Economic Conference on the Easter Adjournment Motion last April still holds. He said:
I believe that no great success can result from the International Economic Conference unless a large part of the obstructions which have been raised in the way of international trade have been removed."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th April 1933; col. 2752, Vol. 276.]
That is a clear and specific statement from the Prime Minister. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he replies to-day will be able to tell us how far that expectation, hope or desire has been fulfilled, or is likely to be fulfilled, as the outcome of the deliberations of the Conference.
I propose to devote myself solely to what was understood to be the main topic of Debate to-day, namely, the policy of what is known, I would submit incorrectly known, as the policy of public works. I hope that when the Government reply the answer will not be that the prospects are now so rosy, that the turn of trade is so evident, that the House of Commons need not trouble itself any longer very seriously on that matter. It is true that there are signs of improvement, and we all must earnestly hope that they will develop into a reality, and that next winter may not present the gloomy situation which the hon. and learned Member thinks may well occur. While we may entertain those hopes we can have no certain assurance. The fact is that there are still 2,500,000 people unemployed, and that owing to the economic situation of the country the burdens upon the taxpayers are still enormous, and there are little signs that they will be able to be lightened.
When some of us venture, here or in the country, to criticise the measures taken by the Government we are chided, either gently or roughly, for venturing to criticise. We are told that the crisis is still with us, that national unity is still most necessary and that any criticism is regarded as an. act of hostility. But a moment later we are told that the corner has been turned, that thanks to Ottawa and the other great measures taken by the Government, trade is on the upgrade, there need no longer be any grave anxiety as to the position of the nation. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will not repeat the unduly optimistic speech that was made on behalf of the Govern-
ment a few days ago by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, according to which everything was for the best in the best of all possible worlds, and that mainly because of himself and his colleagues the situation of the nation could now be regarded as not unsatisfactory.
It is not long ago since the Chancellor of the Exchequer surprised the House and the country by using a, phrase that quickly became famous, when he said that we could have no assurance that unemployment figures would return to reasonably small proportions in a period of less than 10 years. Why he should have said that I have never been able to understand. How anyone not gifted with omniscience could say what will be the state of the country in 1942 or 1943 passes my comprehension. The condition of the country may be better in that period or it may be far worse. If the right hon. Gentleman holds as a fact that for a whole. decade we are likely to have such a serious state of unemployment, it follows not merely that we should take such steps that are possible to give the unemployed o temporary occupation and part-time training for trades, but that we should with energy arid resolution adopt whatever measures are possible to bring them back into actual work. The term "relief works" was frequently used by the Government in the earlier days. They said that they were opposed to a policy of relief works*. That view is shared by everyone. There is no one who is in favour of relief works, meaning the expenditure of money upon works which do not really require to be done for their own sake but for the sake of giving employment. That is the proper definition of relief works, and to that the whole House is opposed.
Now we hear of public works, and while that expression is generally understood it is only a part of the policy which many of us on these benches have actively advocated. A far better name is a policy of national development, of which public works are an important part but only a part. Much of a policy of national development can be carried into effect by private enterprise, either alone or sometimes assisted and encouraged in a variety of ways by the State or by public corporations. Private enterprise must play a very considerable part. The hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Horobin)
in one of his bright speeches suggested that it appeared to be considered that nothing is done in a country except when the Government is doing it. Many people hold the view that unless the Government is taking action nothing is being accomplished. We do not hold that view, and if private enterprise can by its own energy restore prosperity in a large degree we should regard it as most satisfactory and as a triumph for the country, as well as a valuable means of effecting the purpose we all have in view.
On the other hand, we on these benches do not hold that it should be left solely to private enterprise. Hon. Members of the Labour party are continually suggesting that we on these benches advocate a policy of laissez faire, because in. the middle of the nineteenth century the Manchester school, which was an important and influential section of the Liberal party, held the theory of laissez faire and their policy was definitely based upon that principle. It was never the accepted and official policy of the Liberal party as a whole, and during this century Liberal policy has been entirely different. It has not been based upon the principle of laissez faire. All the great activities of the Government from 1906 to the time of the War in 1914 paid no attention to the principle of laissez faire. Year after year, session after session, a, whole body of constructive legislation, social legislation, industrial and commercial legislation, was passed which was the very negation of the principle of laissez faire, and I doubt whether there is a single Member of this House who now holds the doctrine of laissez faire unless it is the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson). Because we are against tariffs and regard them as a clumsy, costly, and ineffective way of promoting national development, destructive of international trade and protective of inefficiency in industry, because we are against tariffs as a form of State action, it does not follow that we do not favour State action in a variety of other directions, and, particularly, in the sphere of national development.
It is not a new policy. It was advocated 20 years ago by the Liberal party of that day. The whole policy of road development was the result of a recognition that with the advent of the motor car it was
essential to have an entirely new system of roads, which could not be provided by the ordinary highway authorities, which must be planned on a national scale, and owing to the constructive energy of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) the Road Board was established by his famous legislation of 1909, and was provided with a revenue. The outcome of that action by the Liberal Government of that day has been the vast system of roads which are the pride of the country. That is an instance of useful national development. The electric grid, for which the Conservative Government of 1925 to 1929 was responsible, an admirable piece of socialistic legislation, is again an example of national planning of the same kind. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs and many of us for a number of years past have protested against the inadequate development of the telephone system. We pointed out that we were tenth in the scale of nations making use of the telephone. We were told that nothing could be done because of the trade depression, that the Post Office was doing everything possible, but, suddenly, there comes along a Postmaster, the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) followed by the present Postmaster-General, and we find that with a little enterprise, energy and expenditure, a very great deal can be done. We have the telephone development which is now proceeding.
The great Southampton Dock, which has been opened to-day by His Majesty, is another example, and in the sphere of ordinary industry the dyeing industry has been created since the War, at the request of the consumers of dyes themselves, by special State assistance designed for that particular purpose, and a great and successful industry has been built up bringing with it a large export trade. For my part I have always supported it but the period having lapsed for which that special assistance was designed, in the view of many of us, it having fulfilled its work, it is no longer necessary. To-day we have a great development in the steel industry. The large importation of steel into this country was not mainly because of low wages in Belgium but because the kind of steel which is needed for certain purposes, cheap Bessemer steel, was not made in England, and had to be brought from abroad. A fine new
establishment is now being erected at Corby in Northamptonshire, and for my part I should be prepared to consider such special arrangements as may be necessary in order to secure that experiments of that kind should not be a failure. Similarly, there is the case of the bacon industry. We have had great importations of bacon from other countries because in this country agriculturists did not breed the right kind of pig, and did not feed them in the right way in close connection with the dairying industry. The Agricultural Marketing Bill of the late Government contains schemes for encouraging an industry of this kind. National planning in this way is good, and ought to be actively supported.
But in all these cases, and whenever fresh cases are proposed, we must count the cost. We cannot say that everything may he done by a lavish expenditure of the taxpayers' money without regard to the amount of money required to produce a given result. The House has laid upon the nation enormous charges, and by financial recklessness, for which various parties in turn have been responsible, our finances have been plunged into confusion. Some thirty million pounds were given away under the Corn Production Act as a subsidy, in fact, wasted. Thirty million pounds were given as a coal subsidy, also largely wasted. Many millions were given under de-rating and many millions on widows' pensions, an admirable cause, but the revenue inadequately provided for at the time; and the most classic instance of all, the beet sugar subsidy, which has cost the taxpayer over £30,000,000, for which he certainly has not got £30,000,000 of benefit. There are advantages no doubt to a particular constituency in which there are beet sugar factories and farms; any district which has £30,000,000 spent in it within a short period will necessarily prosper. The figures, which have not been challenged, show that for every man employed in the factories or in the fields in the beet sugar industry the taxpayer has had to find per man per day, 25s.
Similarly, when we come to the question of oil from coal—some hon. Members have protested against the course taken by the Liberal party on this point. That there should be the best possible use of coal is an object which we all desire. I had the honour of being the Chairman
of a Royal Commission on the coal industry, which unanimously reported with great emphasis that the real hope for the British coal industry for the future lay in the scientific utilisation of coal. Instead of merely throwing coal into use in a crude raw state it should be split up into its constituent elements, which should be separately used. Here again, the right hon. Member for Carnarvon. Boroughs has been advocating that policy as part of a coal policy for many years past. At the time of the Royal Commission the low temperature carbonisation process was the one chiefly advocated; the Commission recommended that experiments should be made and that every possible assistance should be given to this and to other processes. But we did not suggest that it should be done altogether regardless of cost. The cost is a matter which should be considered in every one of these cases. The present proposal is to give a rebate on oil produced at home, a rebate of 4d. per gallon. The effect of that upon the Exchequer financially is precisely the same as if the Exchequer charged the usual rate of tax and then paid out a subsidy of 4d. per gallon. It is obvious that if you give a rebate of 4d. it is precisely the same as if you give a subsidy of fourpence. How much this is going to cost the Exchequer is uncertain. As the Secretary for Mines pointed out, it depends on a number of factors which cannot at present be determined. He said that the scheme when in full working order would employ 4,000 men so far as this one plant is concerned, and that from the amount of petrol which would be produced the rebate, it was not an. unreasonable figure to assume, would be about £1,000,000 a year, it might be more or it might be less.

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): I said that it might be 2500,000 or £1,000,000, if certain assumptions were granted.

Sir H. SAMUEL: The hon. Member did not dispute the fact that £1,000,000 might prove to be a reasonable figure.

Mr. BROWN: Always on the assumption which I carefully laid down.

Sir H. SAMUEL: Yes. There might be a rebate of £1,000,000. It will employ 4,000 men. That means £250 per man. If there is a saving on unemployment pay, say of about £50 per man per annum, the
cost to the Exchequer would be about £200 per man per annum, or 13s. per man per working-day. The House of Commons is in duty bound to take these facts into consideration. It is not enough merely to say, "We want to help the coal industry; we want to make this experiment; we want to see the scientific utilisation of coal." We must count the cost in each ease. I do not deny that it may be worth while, that its cost may not be excessive. We may be giving encouragement to a scientific and industrial movement which will be of immense value to the whole country, and it may be worth while. All we asked was that these points should be examined, and it was for that reason that we suggested that this House, before it gave its sanction, ought to have evidence upon these matters and see whether it was probable that the advantage to be gained would be worth the very heavy cost.
Always in any popular assembly such as this, in every country, there is a temptation at one and the same time to urge increased expenditure and lower taxation. There is no democratic Parliament in the world in which that does not, happen, in which politicians do not endeavour to put into effect the simple political maxim of the candidate for Parliament, who said that his view of finance was that there should be "more from the Treasury and less from the taxpayer." In this connection we would strongly dissent from the point of view put forward from the Labour benches yesterday. They suggested that this money ought to be found by the State, that these millions should be ventured out of public funds. I cannot imagine any case more risky and speculative than this, or more improper for the investment of the taxpayers' money. Besides which, the State has not got the technical organisation or equipment winch would make it likely that it would succeed. The hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke from the Labour benches, and his friends, are always denouncing the system of private enterprise run for profit. They would substitute for it a system of public enterprise run for loss.
Each case must be dealt with on its own merits. Yes, but you should have a, purpose, a general attitude, a policy. In 1931, at the time of the financial crisis, the 'Government had a
definite policy, that all borrowing must stop. I shared the responsibility for that, and I still think that it was necessary at that time, in view of the financial situation. But as soon as the immediate crisis was over that policy ought to have been changed. Now what we ask Members of the Government is, Haw far are they still continuing the policy adopted in the summer of 1931, and how far do they recognise that after the Conversion Loan and the restoration of financial confidence, with the plethora of capital now in the banks, it would be proper now deliberately and avowedly to change the policy of 1931?
We had in this House a three days' Debate on unemployment. Apart from all party considerations many Members made their contributions in the Debate, and there was a general demand in all quarters for a forward policy in regard to development. Outside, economists like Sir Walter Layton and Sir Arthur Salter strongly urged the same thing. My hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Sir G. Gillett) wrote a notable letter to the "Times" on these lines, and it was endorsed by that newspaper in a striking leading article. The County Councils Association has submitted a large policy of public works. The International Labour Office, consisting of representatives of Governments and employers and workers of all the chief countries, has unanimously passed a resolution on the same lines. There is a widespread public opinion in favour of such a policy. When the Prime Minister was in Washington with President Roosevelt he issued that pronouncement which has attracted so much attention. It included these words:
Enterprise must he stimulated by creating conditions favourable to business recovery, and Governments can contribute by the development of appropriate programmes of capital expenditure:
"Governments can contribute." The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) quoted the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the World Conference:
The United Kingdom will be very ready to examine with the other Delegations how far employment can be stimulated by such action.
That is a reference to schemes of Government capital expenditure. Then came the speech of the President of the Board of
Trade. Following upon those clear and specific declarations it was a speech which I hope I shall not offend him by describing as curt, contemptuous, perfunctory and purely negative. He said:
We have terminated our schemes for dealing with unemployment by way of capital expenditure works, and we shall not re-open those schemes no matter what may be done elsewhere.
That was after the Prime Minister had said that Governments can help by providing programmes of capital expenditure, and after the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the Government would be ready to confer with others as to the right course to take. On 1st May, after the joint declaration of the President and the Prime Minister, I put a question asking what steps were to be taken. The Lord President of the Council replied that in the statement there was a passage indicating that the questions there raised "were all inter-related and could not be settled by any individual country acting by itself." Consequently he deprecated any immediate discussion. Then came the President of the Board of Trade who stated that "the question is one for each country to decide by itself."
What is the view of the Government? Is it that there ought to be connected action by the various Governments, or that each country is to act by itself? We have clear, definite and opposite opinions presented by two leading Members of the Government. Similarly the Prime Minister in his inaugural speech to the World Conference said that it would be hopeless to attempt to deal with these questions of trade barriers piecemeal. But the President of the Board of Trade said:
One thing is certain—that unless we are prepared to proceed piecemeal it will be impossible for us to achieve anything.
When we were Members of the Government there was an agreement to differ. Is there another agreement to differ now? At all events our disagreement was open and public. We tendered our resignations. We were asked to withdraw them. We withdrew them on condition that we could state our disagreements in the House and in the country, and vote accordingly. But now we have the diametrically opposite statements which I have quoted from various Members of the Government, expressing complete
divergence of view. No wonder the Prime Minister is accustomed to take refuge in rose-coloured, sweet-smelling clouds of rhetoric, and in what has been called a policy of blur, so that no one shall really know what is the precise policy of the Government. I do not demur to the negative given by the President of the Board of Trade to the suggestion of a great international loan to which we should contribute. There is a good deal to be said for lending money abroad in order to stimulate our own industries and their development, but the difficulty is to find countries which are credit-worthy. I see no reason why this House should be asked to give loans which would result merely in the loss of the money that is lent.
Finally, there is this large programme of possible undertakings which would be available with a policy of national development: Roads—It is absurd to think that our whole road system was completed and perfected in 1931. The Royal Commission appointed by the Conservative Government, with Sir Arthur Griffith Boscawen as Chairman, urged the necessity for many improvements in our existing roads. Telephones--there is still a vast development possible there. Buildings—the Building Industries National Council have circularised Members of this House saying that
the whole outlook is befogged by uncertainty to-day due to the confusion created by differing authoritative statements as to the Government's intentions in respect of public works programmes generally,
and urging that this House should press the Government for a clear and unambiguous statement. Land settlement and Empire migration—In these matters we should not limit our attention merely to national development, but consider the Empire, which is of equal importance. Land drainage and rural water supply—There was an interesting Debate in this House opened by the Noble Lord the Member for. East Norfolk (Viscount Elmley). We might also well urge that the electrification of railways should be further examined. On that subject there was a most elaborate expert report issued not long ago. Then there is the Charing Cross railway bridge, the continued existence of which is an insult to the Capital of the Empire and to the Empire itself.
The question is, have we a Government which is determined to get things done,
determined to show something of the spirit which has been in evidence in Italy and in the United States Or is it a Government which is only seeking to find reasons for inaction? There is the fundamental absurdity which is patent to all of us, that there should co-exist all this idle labour and idle capital and unsatisfied need. The masses of the people see is clearly. It angers them and they resent it. They demand from their Government a continuous and a strenuous effort to bring those three factors, labour, capital and need, into a proper relationship, and this House, if it really represents the will of the nation, should make itself the urgent spokesman of that demand.

5.28 p.m.

Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE: About three-quarters of an hour ago my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) announced that he would occupy a very few minutes only in addressing the House on a point which he thought ought to be specially brought before it to-day. That was the question of public works. I am sure he will take no offence if I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman, having travelled over the whole of England, having mentioned many of the schemes in the various books of all colours published by the Liberal party in years past, having told us of all the various proposals which ought to be carried out, ended by telling us in what might be described as emphatic language that none of these things should be done if the cost could not be met and if they were not in themselves remunerative. He complained very bitterly of a speech made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, which he described as purely negative, and asked what scheme the Government had in view. I am bound to say, with the greatest respect to the right hon. Gentleman, that although I have listened to many of his speeches with the greatest interest in the past, I listened to this one to-day without realising in the end exactly what it is that he now wants. I realise that he put forward the desirability of all these public works being carried out, but if he at the same time stipulates for all the various conditions which he set out as necessary for any prudent individual or Government to take
into consideration to be carried out, it is clear that a great many of the projects could not possibly be brought into actual operation.
The right hon. Gentleman also intimated that he thought perhaps this was a time for dealing more with the details than with the subject of the World Conference as a whole. I do not agree with that view. A great many of us for months, indeed almost for the last two years, have kept very quiet—more silent perhaps than we liked—in connection with world economic affairs, first because of the possibility of this conference being called and then, when it was called, in the hope that there would be a successful conclusion to its labours. Many people who had grave doubts as to the possibility of achievement at. this time responded to the implied request of the leading Members of the Government and indeed of statesmen of all countries that every chance should be given to the conference to achieve success. Some of us felt that while there was little chance of real results for a World Conference in the present conditions of the nations, that it was not opportune that we should say so long as there was any possibility of even a partial agreement when the representatives of these 66 peoples met together.
I maintain that the House is entitled and indeed is bound, before we disperse at this time to consider the situation in which we now find ourselves. It is not a question of considering who is to blame. That is not the point. It is not a question of considering whether the Government are or are not largely responsible for the failure of the conference. I do not believe for a moment that they are responsible. I believe that this Government and indeed the Governments of the other nations did their utmost to get agreement. What we are bound to consider first at this stage is the question: What were the causes of failure? The consideration of that question may help us to success in the future. That is the first point which we have to consider. The second is: What is to be the position of Great Britain and of the Empire as a whole in the situation in which we now find ourselves? That is a subject which we are entitled to discuss to-day and it is of vastly greater importance I
suggest with great respect than the more detailed points to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen devoted himself during the last three-quarters of an hour.

Sir H. SAMUEL: Half-an-hour.

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: I wish to put this consideration before the House. People have had great difficulty in understanding the attitude of America. There has been a great deal of misunderstanding in this country of America's attitude and a great deal of blame has been attached to the President. and the people of the United States because they were not able to implement the arrangements which were indicated when the Conference was first called in regard to an agreement on currency policy. Most of those who have attempted to study this subject are, I think, in agreement that, situated as the United States is to-day, it was impossible, at this moment, for her to enter into any agreement to stabilise the dollar. The position in a few months may be different, but the United States at present is in a totally different position from this country. The export trade of the United States compared with their total volume of trade is small, whereas we are entirely dependent upon our export trade. What is possible for us is not possible for the United States. They have to consider, far above everything else, the position of the raw material producers within their own borders. Therefore, we have no reason to find fault with the United States because they were not able to come to a currency settlement while they are engaged in a great experiment the success or failure of which will affect the whole world. It is perhaps unfortunate—and it is not doing any harm to say so plainly now—that being the case, that the Conference was called at all. I think we shall be doing no good to-day if we seek to gloss over the fact that the Conference has, on the whole, been a failure. It has failed through nobody's fault, and though we may hope for results and advantages from it at a future date, it is no good pretending that it has been a success so far.
If we cannot get a world agreement regarding stabilisation of currency this House should consider, I venture to suggest, what is to be the attitude of the Government of this country, and indeed of the Governments of the Empire, as to our
future currency and financial policy. If we cannot yet get agreement with the United States, it is equally clear that we do not want an agreement binding us to the Gold Standard countries. We have suffered ever since the War from a continuous policy of deflation. The policy of the Gold Standard countries, so long as they can hang on to a so-called Gold Standard, must be one of deflation. In reality, Switzerland and Holland are the only two countries on gold. Other countries are on gold on a very depreciated form of franc, or whatever the currency may be. Leaving that point aside, however, it is clear that if our policy is not to be one which will keep our currency in tune with the dollar, we do not want to waste time trying to support the franc. That is what I am afraid of if our present policy is continued. The Chancellor of the Exchequer upon numerous occasions has truly said that what we all want is a rise in prices. He has also said, with equal truth, that that cannot be achieved by monetary action alone. But there the right hon. Gentleman has stopped short. He has never told us what else is required.
We all agree that monetary action alone will not raise prices, but I suggest to all who believe in the desirability of raising prices that our hands are now free and that it is now for us to say what action Great Britain is prepared to take to bring about that result. If we follow the trend of prices since we went off the Gold Exchange Standard in 1931, we find that, although sterling prices have gone up and down more or less in the same manner as gold prices, they have never or almost never fallen below the level of the day when we went off gold, whereas gold prices have gone sometimes 10 points, sometimes 25 points lower than the basis of September, 1931. If we want to raise prices, it is clear that we must disregard gold altogether. It has no bearing upon prices in this country. A Gold Standard may be the best kind of Standard for some future day, and I would so far agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to say that I do not think any better standard than gold has ever been put forward. But there is no possibility that any human being alive to-day can see, that within a reasonable time we can return to the Gold Standard on lines which would be approved by the Gold
Delegation to the League of Nations. That delegation has laid down many conditions which must be fulfilled before the world returns to gold. We need not go further than the first condition which is, that the gold of the world should be redistributed. But it cannot be redistributed without upsetting the whole basis of world trade. The sooner we get away from the idea of gold as the one thing that matters to us, the better it will be for the future of our trade.
The hon. and learned Gentleman who opened this Debate spoke strongly of the desirability of following here the system now proposed in America of forcing higher wages and shorter hours. I agree that those are very desirable things, and I think there is not an employer in this country who would not like to pay higher wages and who would not be agreeable to adopt shorter hours, but to achieve those two things a third thing is necessary. There must be profits, otherwise the employer has not the money to pay the higher wages. Unless he gets higher prices he cannot pay the higher wages, and unless he pays the higher wages he cannot get higher prices. So it goes round in a circle. If we make a condition that the employer must first pay the higher wages, it is clear that we are going to have difficulty in starting the circle revolving in the opposite way. Although it may come as a corollary of other methods, the forcing of higher wages alone is not going to achieve the end in view.
Then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen and other speakers in previous Debates on this subject have put forward the idea of public works. Remunerative public works can only be carried out to a very limited extent. It was said the other day, I think by the President of the Board of Trade—I apologise if I am incorrect in fathering the statement on the right hon, Gentleman—that during the period of the Labour Government, £200,000,000 was spent in two years to employ 114,000 men. Whatever the exact figures are, I think it is clear that the amount which the country can spend remuneratively on public works is limited. Therefore, that is not the way. Although, as I say, I agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that monetary action alone will not raise prices, I urge upon him that it
is by monetary action first and foremost that we can begin the rise and from which will follow other actions to secure the end we have in view. As long as we keep money dear we keep everything else cheap. We keep prices down. There is a perfect balance. If you keep money very -dear you make all your prices cheap. If you make money cheap you make prices dear.

Lieut.-Colonel CHARLES KERR: Is not money cheap now?

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: Money in the sense in which I am speaking now is not cheap. Money is cheap in the sense that it cannot be employed. That is a totally different thing. Money is locked up in the banks merely because people cannot employ it, and they cannot employ it because they cannot get profits on low prices. I suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that while it is true perhaps to say that monetary action alone will not raise prices, it is equally true that monetary action must precede every other kind of action if prices are to be raised. Holding those views, I am bound to face this situation. The world, as shown by the result of the Conference, is not, unfortunately, able—though I think it would be very willing—to come to a settlement to enable goods to be freely exchanged on a basis upon which the seller and the buyer would build the financial transaction between them and know that their moneys were going to be stable for a sufficient period to make the transaction profitable. I cannot see any chance at present of world currencies being anchored to a common basis.
What then are we to do? I suggest that there is no reason why we should wait for America or for the rest of the world. Let us, by all means, work with the United States as soon as the United States are able to join us, but I firmly believe that we can make a start within the Empire which will bring not only the sterling group now but the whole world eventually on to one common basis of currency stability. It has been said that it is impossible to do these things until the whole world is ready to act with you. I would remind the House that there should be no more difficulty in exchanging currency than in exchanging goods between here and Melbourne, or between here and Edinburgh. We send our money from here to Edinburgh or, if you like,
from here to Cairo, under a system which has worked satisfactorily for years. It is the system of currency stability which makes the transactions of our traders between London and Cairo simple and secure from risks which no trader should require to undertake. It is a system of depositing credits, or, in the case of Egypt, actual securities against note issue. It has worked, not only in the last few years but over a long period, through times of great inflation and through times of great depression. In the case of Egypt, when the cotton crop was being sold at very high prices and tremendous demands were made on the Egyptian currency system, and again when cotton prices were at the depth of a depression and there was very little demand, still the system worked perfectly smoothly. For the past 16 years we have been working a system between this country and Egypt which, to my mind, could be expanded to the rest of the Empire if it was ready and willing to join with us. I see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies in his place, and he is well aware that the same system applies in some Colonies of the Empire and has worked smoothly for many years.
I suggest that it is worth the while of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his advisers to consider that, now that we are not able to bring about at once a world currency stability plan, there is nothing whatever to prevent the Empire going ahead and forming one for itself. Three things perhaps will be necessary, but they are none of them insuperable obstacles. It will be necessary, no doubt, to ensure that each one of the countries, or parts of the Empire joining in the plan should have a common honesty policy in regard to its budget. In the Empire, at any rate, I do not think we need be afraid of that. The second thing is that it will be necessary to have a more or less common central banking policy, but there again we have largely got it already, and I do not think it is a matter which would produce very great difficulties. Having got those two, the third condition is that we should establish a central organisation. It is immaterial where it is settled, and it does not in the least require one unit of currency for the Empire. There is no reason why we should not continue to use rupees in India and dollars in
Canada, for example. All that we want is to settle one approximately fixed basis upon which the currencies of the Empire can be exchanged to form the foundation for the exchange of our goods. If we did that, I think the sterling nations would promptly join us. They are anxious to keep in convoy with us to-day, and I firmly believe that if we did that, it would be but a very short time before all the rest of the world would be more than anxious to come into our currency circle.
Having said what I have said, I would ask the Government quite clearly to take the House and the country into its confidence. I fully appreciate what this Government have done. When I think of the days that are past, when I think of the conferences, the continual meetings, and perhaps not less than anything else the continual entertainments in which Members of the Government have had to take part during the last few months, I do not think anyone will hesitate to offer them a bouquet of thanks and appreciation for what they have done and tried to do in consultation with the nations of the world. I do not suggest for a moment that anyone is to blame that we have not got more success as a result of the World Economic Conference, bet I do suggest that at this moment, when Parliament is about to disperse for a time, the House, and the country, is entitled to know what is the Government's policy and whether in fact they propose to go ahead, now that we cannot get a world settlement at once, on some scheme for the Empire or to initiate negotiations with other units of the Empire, so as to bring about still better facilities for our own trade and in that way lead, as I hope, to an extension of world trade with us and beyond our borders.
I think the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would do a very great service to the country if he would give us a lead at this time. Those of us who are interested in this subject are undoubtedly bound to be without full knowledge of the Government's policy. The right hon. Gentleman cannot expect us to be anything else. We read on the one hand inspired reports about how marvellous it is that India should be sending us gold. It is good for India, and I am very glad that
India is selling gold at a very high price. I have always been taught in business that it is good to sell when prices are high. Therefore, it is good for India and for us in one sense.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Why?

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: For us, because we are able to get that gold. It is good for us that there is some State in the Empire, if we want gold, able to sell it to us, but when we come to why we are buying, I am bound to say that I find myself in the curious position of not realising the Government's objects in buying gold at all. It is good for India to sell gold at this price, but why is it good for us to buy it and store it? I can understand our buying it to sell it at a profit to somebody else, but why we should buy this quantity of gold, and what is going to happen to these purchases if the world eventually is not able to come to a settlement for the free use of gold and the price falls, I do not know. These may be very simple questions, and it may be that the right hon. Gentleman will feel that I am putting to him questions that I ought to be able to answer for myself. All that I can say is that, with a very earnest desire to assist, as far as a mere back bencher can assist, in the Government's financial policy, I do not and cannot understand what has been in the last few months, and what to-day is, the real object of that policy.
It is not good enough to tell the House and the country to-day that you cannot raise prices by monetary action alone, unless you are prepared to go further and say how you propose to do it. It is not good enough to say that confidence is wanted. Confidence does not fall like manna from heaven. Confidence wilt come by our giving the people knowledge that the past policy of deflation is at an end. There is not the smallest difficulty in the people of this country carrying out such works as can be done remuneratively —only they would not then be public works—if the schemes are on a business basis and they have confidence in the future of our currency and financial policy. I have the greatest admiration for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the way in which he has managed the finances of the country during the past year. I have the greatest admiration for
his setting up of the Exchange Equalisation Account. I think it was a great idea, although I am bound to say that I do not quite know how it is operating. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] There is nothing inconsistent, I suggest, in making those two statements. I think that anything that is aimed at keeping exchanges stable —and to a large extent I gather that it has had that result—is all to the good, and I support it, but I should like to know what the position of that fund really is. That, I take it, we shall not be allowed to know. Still more I would like to know what is the position regarding the £170,000,000 of gold that we now have.
If the policy is merely to wait and see what happens in the future, this country will go on in a rut, and we shall not take that lead in the world's affairs that we could take to-day. I know that I shall be accused of having attacked the Government, but I do not look at it in that way. I think the Government have been muzzled and shackled until to-day. They have muzzled themselves, and for the very best of reasons, because if a world agreement could have been come to, it was to the interest of everybody that it should be brought about. But we are now in the position that that cannot be achieved at present, and that being so, we are entitled to ask that the Government should go ahead freely, without hesitation, on an Empire policy which will bring back real prosperity to us, our Dominions and Colonies, and in the end will benefit the trade of the world.

5.54 p.m.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr, Chamberlain): Although I am very anxious not to trespass unduly upon the time of the House, after watching the example of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne), who has just preceded me, and who has himself taken up, I think, nearly as long as the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel)—

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: I spoke for exactly 23 minutes, I think.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I was going to say that I was not going beforehand to set any limit of time that I should find it necessary to occupy, but I think the Debate has progressed sufficiently far to indicate fairly clearly what the House
would desire to hear from me this afternoon. We are in the position that the World Monetary and Economic Conference is to be adjourned to-morrow, and the House desires, I presume, to have from me any comments that I might appropriately make upon the situation produced by that adjournment, and any enlightenment that I can give it as to British policy in the near future.
First of all, I wish to deprecate the attitude of what seems to me extreme pessimism taken up both by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), who opened the Debate, and, as usual, by the right hon. Member for Darwen, who hoped that to-morrow the delegates would "fall into one another's arms and pledge ourselves to eternal misery." Fortunately, it is not into his arms they are going to fall, and, therefore, there does not seem to be any occasion to take a gloomy view of the future. Do not let us talk as if the adjournment of the Conference was synonymous with the completion or the conclusion of the Conference. I think that everybody who will look up in the dictionary the word "adjournment" will find that it has not the same meaning as the word "conclusion," and it is perfectly clear and plain that the Conference has been obliged to adjourn—I am not going to mince words about it—without being able to tackle the most important part of its agenda, because conditions supervened after the Conference began which made it impossible for the time being to continue its discussions usefully upon some of the most important points that it had intended to debate. One can say that without attributing blame to any Government or country concerned. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend who said that in the circumstances which prevailed in the United States recently it clearly was impossible for their Government to contemplate a temporary stabilisation of their currency.
Well, we had to accept that position, but it does not mean, because we accept that position, that we think that is a permanent condition of affairs. It is quite obvious that those very conditions which brought the Conference to an earlier conclusion or an earlier adjournment than we had expected are not of a permanent character. They are circumstances which are bound again to change, and I see no reason why anybody should assume that
when the circumstances have changed, when some sort of stability has been arrived at which will enable the countries again to discuss these questions in an atmosphere of tranquility, there should not be a reassembly of the Conference. A reassembly of the Conference does not necessarily mean that all the same individuals come back. After all, this is a Conference of many nations, and it is always possible, if one member of a delegation is not able to come back, for some other representative of his country to attend.
I do not in any way qualify or derogate from any statements that I have made at any time on the general subject of the necessity for international co-operation if we are to win back international prosperity. I do not in any way withdraw what I have said to the effect that we cannot ourselves expect to attain full national prosperity except by means of the restoration of international prosperity, and since some of the factors which are necessary to restore international prosperity are undoubtedly international in character, and can only be removed by international co-operation, it is quite clear that sooner or later, in one form or another, the countries have got to get together and come to an agreement about them.
The hon. and learned Gentleman who opened the Debate stated that there was a new factor in the situation owing to the advance of mechanical science and the displacement of labour by machinery. He knows very well that I have for long taken a serious view of that factor and have stated over and over again that it was, in my judgment, one of the most urgent and most difficult problems which the world has got to solve. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen said he had never been able to understand what I meant by saying that I did not imagine that we could expect to get back to comparatively small figures of unemployment for another 10 years. That was precisely the consideration which I had in my mind, as I have explained more than once to the House; it is because I see that labour is daily being displaced by machinery and economic devices that I say that that must add to the unemployment problem, not only in this country, but in every industrial country in the world.
The United States are trying an experiment on a gigantic scale of extraordinary interest, and all of us are watching it to see what is going to happen. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman is mistaken in his view that it must result in either a complete failure or in the expropriation of the capitalist. I do not think that that is necessarily the dilemma which has to be faced. But, undoubtedly, the experiment is one of which nobody can prophesy the result with any confidence at this stage. One can say, however, that the conditions in the United States are probably more favourable for the success of such an experiment than they are anywhere else. It was pointed out by my hon. Friend just now that the United States are far less dependent on their export trade than, for instance, this country is, and therefore they may be able to afford to raise their costs in their own country without thereby suffering a severe reduction in a large proportion of their trade. I would remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that, in considering the situation in the United States, they must remember that the President has to face a reduction of wages which has taken place in that country which is far greater than any reduction that has taken place here. Probably since 1929 the reduction over there is something like 25 per cent. Therefore, the President has quite a long way to go before he raises wages to a comparative level with those in this country. It may be that the experiment will be a great success. Whatever happens, whether it is a success or a failure, I am sure that all of us will be ready to profit by the example and experience which are displayed to us.
In the meantime, what are we to do in this country? My hon. Friend who has just addressed us pins his faith, not to an Empire currency, but to a sort of Empire currency unit. I think that he will forgive me if 1 say that his plan as he stated it, was very sketchy and vague in outline. Enormous and serious difficulties must present themselves when you examine seriously the prospect of any such plan. You have only to look now, for instance, at the various currencies in the countries of the Empire to see that there may be very different ideas as to the right relation between their currencies and sterling; and to find a system under which the Empire is to take part in the manage-
ment of sterling, although it may have different ideas of the level which will suit its particular interests, is not a problem to be dismissed lightly as one to be easily solved. I will remind my hon. Friend that the question of central banks is not without its difficulties seeing that there is more than one country in the Empire which is without a central bank.

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is it not a fact that most of the representatives of the Empire are more than anxious to tackle this problem?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that any of them have put up any plan. At any rate, no such plan has reached me. When a definite plan is submitted to the countries of the Empire by any one of them, or even by my hon. Friend, it will be examined with every desire to give it impartial consideration, and, if it proves to be better than the plan we are following, it will no doubt be adopted. In the meantime, let me say this. I agree with my hon. Friend so far that it is no part of the policy of this country to link sterling either to gold, on the one hand, or to the dollar on the other.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Or to the franc?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is no part of our policy to link our currency to any other currency. We must pursue our own independent course in this matter, and we must pursue that course in what appears to us to be the interests of this country and the Empire. That is the course we are pursuing, and it is the course we shall continue to pursue in future.
Let me come to the question of public works which has formed the subject of a large part of the speeches that have been delivered. This attempt to find some inconsistency between statements made at different times by different Members of the Government is really beating the air. Of course different Members of the Government, speaking at different times in different circumstances, addressing themselves to different aspects of the problem, will perhaps lay at one moment more emphasis on one aspect and at another moment more emphasis on another, but there is really no inconsistency whatever, and there has been no deviation in the policy of His Majesty's Government. I will take for a moment
the observation of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, which has been the subject of criticism by various hon. Members and various papers. There appears in it this sentence:
We terminated our schemes for dealing with the unemployed by way of capital expenditure on public works, and we shall not re-open those schemes no matter what may be done elsewhere. I say emphatically that for our part we are abandoning this policy once and for all.
May I read a passage from a speech which I delivered myself '? I seem to have delivered more speeches than I remember; this does not happen to be one of those that has been quoted. It was delivered on 16th February in this House. Then, in speaking of this very subject, that is to say, the effectiveness of public works in providing employment, I used these words:
It is the deliberate opinion of the Government that that policy has failed and that. we must have done with it once and for all, and that is an opinion held unanimously by the Cabinet."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1933; col. 1221, Vol. 274.]
That phrase is identical with that used by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. Let us consider what was the proposal with which my right hon. Friend was dealing. It was a proposal for international public works for the purpose of relieving unemployment, and my right hon. Friend said two things. First, he said that we have tried public works in our own country for this purpose; we believe it has failed to produce the effect that was desired, and we have done with it once and for all. Secondly, as regards international public works, he said that we are not going to lend our money for that purpose to any other country. I think it is obvious that if we have money to spare we can use it better than by spending it on public works in other countries whose ability to repay any loans that may be made might possibly be called into question. Apart from the question of unemployment, there is a considerable body of opinion throughout the country which does not take what I might call the extreme view about public works, which does not take the view, for instance, expressed by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol, that it is essential that all kinds of public works should be carried out in order to carry out an expansionist policy. That means that it would be a
good thing to dig holes and fill them up again. [HON. MEMBERS "Oh !"] I do not know what the hon. and learned Gentleman meant if he did not mean that. I do not want to misrepresent him, but that is what I understood him to mean, namely, that the great thing was to spend money for an expansionist policy, and that it did not matter whether the public works were remunerative or not, we should spend money and carry out an expansionist policy. If that is what he meant, it is the same as digging holes and filling them up again—

Sir S. CRIPPS: The instance of an unremunerative work which I gave was a school, and I ok the right hon. Gentleman whether he considered that that was an unremunerative work.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: May I take it, then, that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not advocate works which are not, as the Prime Minister said, either remunerative or necessary

Sir S. CRIPPS indicated assent.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Then in that case the hon. and learned Gentleman pledges himself to what I may call the more moderate view. It is argued that in a country like this there must always he in the ordinary course of things a certain number of public works which may be carried out by the Government, or perhaps by local authorities, or even by private enterprise with, possibly, some assistance. The suggestion is that in bad times these works should be accelerated instead of leaving them to times when authorities will have to compete with a high level of activity in private enterprise. That is a very plausible view, and I think, indeed, that there is some solid ground for it. I do not think the Government would dissent for a moment from the idea that if you can plan your schemes for a certain time ahead so that you would carry out more when times were depressed and less when times were piping, that in itself would be a better distribution than leaving it to normal working.
What I do not think the House ever seems quite to understand is that that is the policy which has been carried out ever since the War, that there is not an unlimited number of schemes which you can put into operation, that we have been anticipating and accelerating works
for all these years, and that we have, to a great extent, exhausted the works which could be anticipated. I think that there is an exaggerated idea in the minds of some hon. Members as to the contribution that can be made by a scheme of public works, even assuming that you can, to some extent, anticipate works which would be done normally two or three years hence. In the first place, let me lay this down, that we cannot spend large quantities of public money on public works without adequate preparation of the ground. We must examine into any of the work that is being proposed; we must see that the plans are effectively and economically prepared. That is the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen. The only difficulty is that he always finds that every plan we take up is wrong, and that the only ones that are right are those which have been proved by experience to be right. But I do not want to spend time on that point.
I say, let us have some regard to the size of the problem before us, and the volume that we can put into that problem by the expenditure of public money. Take, for instance, the situation in the United States of America. Has the House in mind what has been the extent of the drop in the national income of the United States? It has been estimated that since 1929 it has fallen from 85,000 million dollars to 40,000 million dollars, a drop of 45,000 million dollars. 'What is the programme of public works contemplated in the United States? A sum of 3,000 million. Big as it is, it is a drop in the bucket. What is the answer of the right hon. Gentleman? He says that our policy is still exactly what it was in 1931. No For a very long time we have said that we are not only willing but anxious to find schemes which are justifiable in themselves which will enable us to do what we can to carry out this expansionist policy, but our difficulty is that we cannot find schemes which would really involve the expenditure on those lines of sums which would really bear some substantial proportion to the drop in the national income.
Do not let the House be led away by the suggestion, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to make,
though it was implied in his speech, that we are not doing anything. He talked about the great days when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for earnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was in office. It is delightful to see the bouquets which are thrown in this atmosphere of good will. We are anxious to pay our tribute to the right hon. Gentleman, but do not let the House suppose that all public expenditure died and ceased when he no longer directed the activities of the country. On roads, for instance, we have spent since the War, £130,000.0000. I am not talking about maintenance, of course, but of capital expenditure. That was not all spent in the times of which the right hon. Member for Darwen spoke. He talked about telephones and other Post Office work. We have spent £120,000,000 on telephones alone. Does he suggest that that was all before the time of the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) or my right hon. Friend who now presides with so much distinction over the Post Office? We have this year expanded our programme of Post Office works. But there, again, we cannot simply say to the Post Office, "Spend £100,000,000," and imagine that they are going to be able to spend £100,000,000 at once. They have to make their plans, they have to get their quantities out, they have to make their preparations, and it is quite impossible for them to accelerate the progress they are making beyond a certain point.
When we do put up new schemes, like the scheme for the extraction of oil from coal by the hydrogenation process, the hon. and learned Member sneers at it as being not worth speaking of, because it is so small, and the right hon. Gentleman opposes it on the ground that it has not been properly inquired into. I do not think any of us have made undue claims for a scheme of that kind. What we say is that at least that is an illustration of the fact that we are searching round all the time to see in what direction we can stimulate industry to start the wheels again. While not accepting the sort of description the right hon. Gentleman gave as resembling anything we have said, I think we may fairly claim that the corner has been turned, and that although prosperity has not come, and I do not expect it to come for some time, yet there are definite signs from all parts
of the country of renewed confidence, of renewed buying, of renewed traffic on the railways, of more men and women in employment. There, again, I am not going to say that that is wholly due to the action of the Government, still, seeing that whenever anything goes wrong we are blamed, I think the Government are not unjustified in claiming that when things go right they at least have had some share in it.
Let me say, in conclusion, that the policy of the Government is the same as it was before the Conference began. We anticipate confidently that the work which has been obliged to be postponed will be taken up again as soon as conditions sufficiently alter to enable it to be taken up usefully. We rely now, as we did then, upon international co-operation, which we shall do all we can to help in order to remove some of those factors which are standing in the way of a restoration of national prosperity. As far as our currency is concerned, that is a matter on which we shall pursue our own course, independent of other countries, and, so far as the policy of public works is concerned, we must be governed by the practicability and the businesslike character of the schemes which we consider. But within those limits it is our intention to do everything we can by Government assistance, within the limits of sound finance, to make the credit which is available to-day not only available to but actively demanded by industry itself.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Would the right hon. Gentleman let me put one question? I want to ask if he could tell the House whether the policy of the Government is to get up wages and salaries and increase purchasing power, or keep them down so as to help our exports? Which is the policy?

Mr. OHAMBERLAIN: The Government has not got dictatorial powers to put wages up or down. What it can do, or what it can endeavour to do, and what it has to a considerable extent, I think, succeeded in doing, is to raise prices. If wholesale prices are raised, and they can be raised to a considerable extent yet without any serious effect upon retail prices, then at once the purchasing power not only of this people but of all peoples connected with sterling will be raised, and, of course, the effect of that must be
to start trade, international and national trade; and the general rule applies that the time when trade is prosperous is the time when wages rise.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I confess to some disappointment at the speech delivered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I expected to hear something of what had happened at the conference, and was likely to happen to-morrow, and whether he had come to the conclusion that anything had been achieved by it, and what the future plans of the Government were in reference not merely to the conference, but, what is still more important, the future plans of the Government in reference to the fact that the conference had completely failed. I listened to a very remarkable speech by an hon. Gentleman behind me, and agree entirely with what he says that not merely the House of Commons but the country has been waiting for this conference in the hope that something would be accomplished. A good deal of criticism has been suppressed and withheld until the conference was over, and now that it is over I am certain that everyone is expecting to know what the Government propose to do at the present moment. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, "The conference will be wound up to-morrow, we must have time to consider all the conditions created by its failure and we promise to do so during the vacation which is in front of us" —and although it is a fairly long vacation, it will probably not be too long for a thorough examination and survey of the whole position-- "and then we propose to take such action as we shall be advised," it would have been very difficult to criticise that attitude. But his speech was purely a negative one. He said, "If anybody has any scheme, tell us what it is. We can see no other than the proposals which we have already put into operation."
The Chancellor of the Exchequer made it quite clear that he agreed with the statement of the President of the Board of Trade—a very remarkable statement. I never charged the latter with being inconsistent. On the contrary, I think he was stating the policy of the Government. It is my complaint that my right hon. Friend—if he will allow me to call him such, in spite of
the fact that we sit on different sides of the House—has a very remarkable gift of lucid and clear statement. In that respect he is disloyal to his chief. 1 am bound to tell him that he ought not to have developed or indulged so fatal a gift—so fatal to such leadership. When the intentions of the Government are not clear, to make a clear statement is both mischievous and misleading. But that is the position. I accept what has been said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer —that the President of the Board of Trade simply declared what the real intentions of the Government were, but that he did it too clearly to meet the exigencies of the leadership which he now follows.
But the Conference is dead, and I understand the Prime Minister is engaged at the moment in considering the best methods of embalming it so as to preserve the appearance of life after the spirit has departed. Sixty-six nations have been brought here to witness chaos, and I do not believe it is a bad thing myself, because it is something which is inherent in the situation. It is something which is fundamental, and it is a good thing the nations should be brought together to be confronted with it. So far from deploring what has happened, I congratulate the country on having escaped from a Government Conference without any serious happening. Lausanne has already cost us £31,000,000—E29,000,000 the last payment, and £2,000,000 a short time ago, and the account is not closed, except on the credit side. Ottawa—well, I do not think the Government quite realise the extent to which damage has been done by the agreement into which they were bluffed. Let them talk to any farmer and he will show them what a disastrous effect it is having upon some of the essential ingredients of the farmer's business—eggs, bacon, mutton, lamb, butter particularly, cheese and fruit. They do not realise what damage has been done. It will become increasingly evident as things go on. I am not satisfied with the conferences about India. I view them with considerable dubiety and anxiety, and I do not believe that that is the best method of settling that question, but that is by the way.
With regard to this Conference, we are out of it without any material loss, except the feather which the Prime Minister has prematurely stuck in his cap, but
without any material gain. There is this advantage in it, that it has undoubtedly brought the nations face to face with reality. What have we to do, now that it is over? We have not to talk about future conferences. We cannot continue these flights from cloud to cloud, chasing the horizon. The conditions of the world are not such as are propitious to an international settlement of its difficulties. That is a serious fact. That is one of the things that emerges out of this Conference and other conferences. I agree with everything that was said by an hon. Member behind me, answering suggestions that America was to blame. It was too much to expect America, having regard to what is happening there, to come with any definite and clear proposals, either with regard to stabilisation or tariffs, or any of the other fundamental questions that were under consideration. President Roosevelt came in only in March. He was confronted by about the worst financial crash that has ever befallen any great country. It was worse than in 1931. He had to deal with it by a series of emergency measures which he had hardly time to consider. When the Prime Minister went over, by the time he arrived, America was off the Gold Standard; between the time he left Southampton and the time he reached America the dollar had dropped 50 per cent. I do not care what was said during his long week-end there; the facts were enough to force anyone who knew the conditions to come to the conclusion that there was no basis upon which you could stabilise in reference to the £.
I agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the American experiment is a tremendous one and that it is too early yet to come to any conclusion as to whether it is going to be a failure or a success. Of this I am certain, that whether it is a failure or a success, it will have the most immense influence upon the course of economic events, not merely in the United States of America but in every country throughout the world. There are three experiments proceeding now, as we debate things in this House, upon the success or failure of which the whole course and outlook of the world depend—the Russian, the Italian to a certain extent—it is a very considerable experiment, and we hear very little of it here—and the American, the American being by far the more important. I hate using the word
"revolution" in reference to it, but it is a complete transformation. Mr. Roosevelt, I heard, called it a. coordinated plan. It is an immense experiment. Whether he fails or succeeds, he has now started. He has behind him the resources of the richest country in the world, and a highly-developed, highly-trained and well-equipped nation with great liquid resources, and, having started, he has either to follow through or to fall through. Until that experiment has got to some kind of firm basis, there is no foundation upon which you can come to any arrangement with America in reference to stabilisation or tariffs.
Take tariffs. Senator Cordell Hull, a very able man—a strong Free Trader, and always has been—did his very best to raise the issue of Free Trade at the commencement of this conference. He put in a series of propositions a couple of days ago. They were very remarkable. He is all in favour of a revision of tariffs, but what were his reservations? Those are the things that matter, just as in the case of the right hon. Gentleman who was in favour of public works, but had so many reservations that there was very little left. This is one of his reserva tions:
Additional duties upon goods found to be dumped.
That might be considered in regard to the Dominions.
New or additional duties or restrictions necessitated by Governmental measures of an emergency character which—by raising wages, shortening hours and improving conditions of labour—have resulted in increased costs and prices.
If that means anything, it does not mean lower tariffs but increased tariffs. What arrangements were there in this conference for discussing stabilisation and for discussing tariffs, or, having regard to the statements made by the President of the Board of Trade, which was the policy at Ottawa, because it was declared by two men who have the gift of lucid statement, what basis was there for making any conceivable arrangements of a practical character at the conference? I agree again with the hon. Gentleman behind me. I cannot understand why the conference was ever summoned in those conditions.
What really matters is this: After the Conference, even though it is an unqualified, acknowledged and even ludicrous failure, what next? I think that we
ought, before we separate, to have some declaration from the Government. What do they propose to do? I quite understand that they are not in a position at this moment to get up and say that they propose to do one, two, three, four or five things. They were depending upon this great international Conference easing matters, stabilising things that are unstable, and removing barriers here and difficulties there. That has gone. What is next? Are the Government going to consider the matter during the vacation, not in the very negative spirit of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but in a receptive spirit? The principles are agreed. The right hon. Gentleman congratulated the late Solicitor-General upon the moderation of his policy. They were both agreed. Very well, the matter is left entirely to a question of interpretation. We are faced with two difficulties. Things are improving. I agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I take, as he has done now and as I have always taken, the railway traffic returns, as a very good indication of whether things are improving or not. If there are no goods manufactured, there are no goods carried; if there are more goods manufactured, there are more goods carried. There is no doubt that railway traffic returns are improving week by week, but whether it is a temporary boom or something a little more permanent, I cannot undertake to say.
May I remind the House that standing here in November I made two predictions? One was that by November, 1933, the numbers of the unemployed would possibly be down to 2,000,000. I do not think that that is impossible. That was a prediction in a speech in this House which will he found in the OFFICIAL REPORT for November, 1932. I made a further prediction, of which I am not quite so sure, that by October, 1934, the 2,000,000 might be down to 1,000,000, but that is where we were in 1929, and where we have been for nearly 10 years. The problem of unemployment, as we understood it, was not a problem of exceptional unemployment created by the world slump, but of chronic unemployment of 1,000,000—but l,000,000 running up whenever the world had any serious depression to 2,000,000, from 2,000,000 to 3,000,000, swinging from 3,000,000 to 1,000,000 and from 1,000.000 to 3,000,000,
in an inexorable pendulum of unemployment. Let us assume the very best with regard to world recovery, that is, that you will be down next year to your 1,000,000. Your problem still remains. What do you propose to do? Have you any plans of any kind? I ask the Government now.
I think that we are at the end of our conferences for some time. Signor Mussolini has declared it, two or three days ago in an article with which I felt very much in agreement; but we are not at the end of drawing lessons from them. What is the lesson which we must draw from all these conferences, whether on disarmament or economic disarmament? It is that the world is so drenched with fear as the result of the War, that it is not prepared to surrender any of its protective weapons, in the shape of armies, tariffs or restrictions. We may deplore it; some of us think it is a great mistake; but you must recognise it as a fact, and build your policy upon that basis until there is a change in the psychology of nations. You have had disarmament conferences for 10 years, one after another, under one Government after another. What has happened? Each disarmament conference has been followed by an increase in armaments in almost every country in Europe. At Genoa, all the nations came to an agreement with regard to gold and the stabilisation of currencies, but nothing happened. You had a conference, headed by the President of the Board of. Trade, I think in 1927, at Geneva, where there was complete agreement regarding the reduction and ultimate elimination of tariffs. The industries of the world represented there, and the Governments of the world represented there, agreed unanimously to that resolution. What has been the result? Tariffs have been raised, restrictions have been multiplied, exchange difficulties have been springing up ever since. Why? We under-estimated the psychology of the War, and the fear which it put into the very heart and fibre of nations.
Take Russia to-day. Do you think that this is a Communist experiment? Not in the least. It is a Russian experiment. Why have they a Five Year Plan? Why did Russia fail in the Great War? I have been going through the documents with very great care recently, for another
task, aided very considerably by the reports of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who was then with the Russian armies. Why did they fail? They failed for lack of equipment. They had no factories; they had no workshops. They had plenty of primary materials, but they had no skilled workers, and they had no means of equipping themselves, in a country which is the richest in the world in natural material resources. The Russians said, "Whenever anything of that kind comes again, we shall he prepared; we shall have our factories and our workshops." I wonder whether lion. Members have noticed this with regard to Soviet propaganda, which is the cleverest propaganda in the world? It understands Russia. It does not understand other countries, but it understands the Russians. They are concentrating on stimulating sacrifies on the part of their people to build up these factories, and they are stimulating them with the belief that someone is. going to attack them.
In Germany you find the same thing. I hear that Herr Hitler is going to put 200,000 or 300,000 more people on the land there. They suffered and were beaten in the War because of food shortage; they were a beleaguered country. Italy could' not get coal; she could not get supplies, or had to get them from outside, and, when they were obtained, crushing prices had to be paid for them. Neutral countries were short of machinery and clothing for themselves, because all the countries that used to supply them had their energies absorbed in the War; and all the countries except ourselves were short of shipping, and could not get the necessary transport. All that burnt itself into the minds of the people of all these countries, and you will not get rid of the psychology created by it until the generation that went through the War has passed away. It comes out in all these conferences, and you have to recognise it. I deplore it.
I believe in open markets, but the open market has completely gone, as open warfare has gone. It is a war of trenches, every country building up trenches against every other country and against every other interest. In this conference of 66 nations, with everybody agreed that these things were interfering with the trade of the world, and that much of the trouble of the world depended upon them, not a
sandbag has been taken off the parapet, not a strand has been broken of the barbed wire. We must accept that fact, whether we are Free Traders or Protectionists; but, whether it is Free Trade or Protection, it is not enough in itself—you must build some policy on it. What is it? I agree with my right hon. Friend that "public works" is not a right description of what you ought to do. The right hon. Gentleman gave a very negative answer with regard to that. Having agreed upon the principle that anything which is profitable, anything which is necessary, is not merely justifiable in the long run, but ought to be accelerated—that is one very fertile sentence which the right hon. Gentleman dropped—I ask him why it should not be done?
I am not going through the long list of things that might be done—slums, rural building, telephones, docks, harbours, canals; but take telephones. In spite of all that has been done by my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General, we are still fifth in rank, I think, among the telephone users of the world. However, I am not going to dwell upon that; I am just going to dwell for a short time upon one thing alone, and that is agriculture. I am encouraged to do so by a speech delivered by the Lord President of the Council. I was really very interested in it, and I said to myself, "Does he mean it?" He will not be offended if I say to him that he 'has a habit of now and again stumbling on the truth and then picking himself up and going on as if nothing had happened. My opinion is that he should attach greater importance to his own speeches. This speech, particularly, is one to which I want to call his attention. His speech at Cambridge—interesting, as always, fresh, as always—is suggestive of a very different policy from the one which has been proclaimed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He does not say, "Where are your schemes?" He says, "I have got them in my mind." I wish he would translate them into action. He said—I have tried to say it many times:
I believe we are a long way from having reached the production of which this country is capable in agriculture.
That is true; I believe you could double the production and make a profit. But this is a still more remarkable statement:
I believe we have hardly scratched the land as far as smallholdings and allotments are concerned.
What does that mean? The experiments made by recent Governments, just before the War and immediately after the War, added something like 45,000 to our smallholdings, and I think a few hundred thousand to our allotments. The right hon. Gentleman says that we have barely scratched the problem, and I agree. I venture here in this House to suggest that we ought boldly to undertake the settlement of 500,000 families on the land. That is not inconsistent with the statement made by the right non. Gentleman. What does it mean? This is a figure which I have given many a time, and I think it is important. We have 7 per cent. of our population on the land, and the nearest country to us in that respect has 20 per cent. A country as highly industrialised as ours, namely, Belgium, has 20 per cent. Germany has over 30 per cent., and, although she is now, I will not say bankrupt, but very hard up—for the moment almost insolvent—she is going to plant another 200,000 or 300,000 on her land. If an extra 500,000 families were put on the land in this country, it would raise our percentage from seven to ten, that is to say, to half the percentage in the next lowest country in the world, or one-third of the percentage in a great industrial country like Germany. Is that an impossible proposition? I ask the Government to take it in hand.
I know it is said that you have not got the men to put on the land; but there are many men who have been brought up on the land and who are now in the 'unemployment list, or driving others into the unemployment list, in every 'industry. In South Wales I know what a number of people have come from the agricultural areas to the mines there, many of them out of a job, or keeping someone else out of a job. They have been trained on the land. Again, you have hundreds of thousands of youths in this country, some of whom have never done a day's work, because there is no day's work for them, and some of whom have only worked for a few years at some job. A young man of average intelligence can learn any trade; why do you not train them? But you are not going to succeed in that policy without a really determined scheme—a plan. I would call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to some
thing which may have a greater influence upon him than anything that I may say. Does he read the "Morning Post "? I do. I always read its articles with interest, entertainment and admiration—very rarely with approval; but this morning I read it with marked approval. It says to the Government, "Your Conference is over. What is your policy now? You are slacking. You worked well for about seven or eight months and you produced a tariff. Since then you have done nothing." It is a paper that supports the Government. [Interruption.] It is a discriminating supporter—much better than the support they get from below the Gangway. Really, there is a good deal of common sense in that.
There are two things which the Government will have to do in order to face realities. They say that they have stabilised prices. Well, they have not. I can understand a Free Trade policy for agriculture—the farmer buys cheaply if he sells cheaply. I cannot understand a policy which is neither one nor the other. I cannot understand a policy which puts the farmer in a position in which he has to compete in some of his most essential goods against producers abroad who can sell butter very much cheaper than he can possibly produce it, and also mutton, lamb, fruit and eggs, while at the same time you tax everything he buys. That is an impossible policy, and the first thing the Government must do, if they are to have a real agricultural policy, is to reconsider Ottawa. They will have to reconsider the terms of that agreement as far as the agricultural community is concerned, otherwise they will have completely wrecked any effort which the Minister of Agriculture can make. It is all very well for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to be the fairy prince of agriculture, helping Cinderella. As a matter of fact, I think it was the fairy godmother who really helped her. He can be the fairy godmother and the prince, too, but where is the golden slipper? [HON. MEMBERS: "Glass."] No, I have looked it up in Grimm. Where is the equipage which is to take Cinderella to her triumph? All that happens is that more facilities are given for the ugly sisters in the Dominions to take away even her rags. He must amend that situation. He can-
not amend it by rhetoric. He can amend it only by action.
What is the next thing you have to do? Whatever the Chancellor of the Exchequer may say, if he is going to revive agriculture, he has got to find the cash, and on a considerable scale. You are dealing with a decayed industry, and anyone who has been trying to do anything with a dilapidated house knows what an expensive thing it is. When you are restoring a decayed industry, it is infinitely worse. It is no use asking who is to blame. The best thing is for each of us to make a catalogue of the sins of the other party, to put them together, and then they will be pretty long. There it is. It is an industry that has been neglected by the State because we were making more money at other things. What is the result? You have an inverted pyramid. You have a most dangerous state of things in this country, which will interfere with its stability if there is any trouble, and which very nearly imperilled its life in the War. You cannot restore an industry of that kind, neglected for over half a century, without the State coming in and supporting it with all its credit and strength. The landlords cannot do it, the farmer cannot do it; it is not in the industry itself. Just see what you have got to do. I will read the headings only: Reclamation of Waste Land—that is occurring in every country except ours. Reconditioning of Uncultivated Land. Increasing and Improving and Modernising Buildings—essential for effective agriculture. Settlement of Families on the Soil. Training Centres. Large Housing Programme. Afforestation of Waste Land. Marketing. You cannot do it merely by Act of Parliament. It all means money.
In all these things the Chancellor of the Exchequer says he can see no scheme that will be productive or in the interests of the country. I cannot understand it. The Government cannot answer proposals of this kind merely by gibes or sneers. Do let the Government once more enter into this proposition and face it with the boldness with which every other country in the world is beginning to handle its problems. You have got the problem of the Empire, the richest in the world. The Empire is not a hollow drum to beat; it is a gigantic estate to be cultivated. It is an outlet for our capital, for our enterprise, for our manhood, and the Govern-
ment must really deal with it. I honestly cannot see any vision, any enterprise, any imagination. Where is the brains trust? The democracies of the world are now thirsting for leadership from their Governments. The Government here have a great majority and the power to pass any plan when after careful consideration they come down to the House with it. They have got very loyal support from a great many people who are very doubtful as to their inaction. 'If the Government come here with a programme of action, I am confident that they will get great support and a great rally from the House outside. Let the Government take heart themselves, and then put heart into the nation.

7.9 p.m.

Mr. HOROBIN: I feel rather like Noah as the flood subsided, but I can take heart of grace by remembering that even then a certain amount of work had to be done. I am not going to follow the right hon. Gentleman who has spoken on a subject of which he is an acknowledged master, the failure of conferences, nor to refer to the curious fact that, although he seems to dislike the Ottawa Agreements, the only part of them he seems to dislike is the Free Trade part. I shall address only one or two observations on a very narrow and destructive point, namely, the question of public works, and lend what support I can to the uncompromising statement of the President of the Board of Trade, which, as I understood it, was the origin of this Debate. On the last occasion on which I had the opportunity of addressing the House on this subject, I drew some analogies with American experience. I do not propose to do that to-day, partly because, in the light of the recent crash of prices in America, it would be a little like hitting a man when he is down, even though at the moment the President manages to prevent himself being counted out by interrupting the referee or ticker when it has counted up to 5.
A good deal of discussion on this matter has got side-tracked into a rather unhelpful statistical argument as to whether it is £300, or £400, or £450 borrowed that will put a man to work. On that I will say only this to the House. Taking the most optimistic and, to my mind, fantastic figure put forward by some economists, that £150 borrowed will put a man to work for a year, and on that
we shall get £50 back by saving on unemployment, I make these comments. In the first place, does anybody really believe we shall be allowed to save that £50? If it means anything, the statement means that, when we borrow £150,000,000 for this purpose, next year £50,000,000 will be put back in the Sinking Fund. If this happened, we should be urged, instead of using the £50,000,000 as a set-off against the borrowing, to use it for restoring cuts and expenditure.
Quite bluntly, apart from theoretical arguments, the objection which a great many people have to a policy of public works is that we "have had some." With these gentry it is always the time to borrow and never the time to repay. They always say you must borrow in bad times and delay expenditure in good times. Let us come back to the years about 1929, about which we hear so much. I will give one figure from 1929, because they always make it loud and clear, they come and shout it in our ear. In those years before the crash the American federal expenditure went up from 3,000 million dollars a year to 13,000 million dollars in the years when, according to this theory, they ought to have been economising. It is perfectly true that, in those 10 years before 1929, they were repaying a certain amount of Government debt, but it was only a quarter of what they borrowed in 1919, and in the two years after the crash they again borrowed more than they repaid in the 10 years of prosperity. We are entitled to say we do not believe the gentlemen who advocate that we should borrow in bad times and repay in good times.
Let us come nearer home. Allowing for sinking fund repayments, the local authorities' debt in 1921 was approximately £595,000,000, and in 1928 it had risen to £1,051,000,000, or very nearly doubled. It is true that a very small proportion of that increase was due to trading assets. I submit to the House that the figures are irrefutable. As to the statements of hon. Gentlemen on those benches, it is all bluff when they tell us that, if we will only give them a little more money now, they will repay whole wads of money when prosperity comes. They do not mean it. The statement from the Opposition Bench seems rather extraordinary. First of ail, he blamed the assembled nations for not dealing with the international debts problem and not wiping off the present
debts, and a few sentences later went on to blame them for not lending more money to Eastern Europe. Capitalists are simple and sometimes forgetful men, but they are not quite so simple and forgetful as all that. He went on to make equally fatuous remarks about international financiers drawing tribute from the rest of the world. It is not international financiers at all who are concerned. It is some old lady living at Cheltenham who has a few Argentine debentures, and not someone in the City, who is weaving these Edgar Wallace plots.
Let me come to another general point. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has pointed out, we have been trying this business of spending money upon nonproductive works for a great many years. There were a number of people out of work in 1921, 1922 and 1923, and we borrowed a lot of money and set them building roads. Those men are out of work again now, but the money has been spent, and we and our children have to go on paying interest and sinking fund, that is, if the children are ever allowed to leave school and go and earn anything. We are staggering under this burden of debt. It is always the people who most object to the burden of debt —they find French and Russian words for describing someone to whom they owe money, rentier, and all the rest of it—who want us to borrow some more. I put it to the House that the Chancellor is perfectly justified in saying that, in vulgar phrase, we have had some.
It is not very often that I differ from the Chancellor, and, while I am about it, I may as well do it thoroughly upon one point where I only wish he had been truer to his own policy. We have had in the last few days some Debates upon an adventure by the Government into business. I refer to the coal and ail affair. There you have one of the few efforts that the Government, fortunately, has made in connection with public works. I am interested to see that when even this Government touches pitch it manages to get thoroughly defiled in an extraordinarily short space of time. I will not weary the House with any technical details, even if I could be certain of getting them right, with regard to this question, but it is very relevant to the weaknesses and the dangers of this
whole policy of the Government interfering in business. Without worrying about details and figures—I do not think they are in dispute—this is in fact a subsidy. It will mean either that the Chancellor is giving up an opportunity of remitting taxation to the tune of about £1,000,000 in each of his four next Budgets, or that he will have to find some alternative way of raising that £1,000,000 in each of his four next Budgets. Here we are dealing with an effort of the Government to give away something like £1,000,000 a year which it either has and could give back to the taxpayer or will have to raise in some other way.
What are the facts that leap to the eye about this experiment? Let me take, first, the tariff side of it. We have heard a great deal at this Conference or elsewhere of the necessity of getting rid of excessive tariffs. Some of us have been inclined to wonder what an excessive tariff is. Now we know. The present tariff is 200 per cent. ad valorem and the Government is guaranteeing that in no case shall that tariff fall below 100 ner cent. ad valorem for four years. That ought to satisfy even the hon. Baronet the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft). But what chance we have of going to other countries and persuading them to lower their tariffs if that is our standard of reasonableness goodness only knows.
As far as I can work out the figures, if this project turns out as much as it is intended to turn out, the only chance of preventing our money going up the spout is that the works really go up in the air. There is one very good point about the scheme. The capital is not ours, so that, if the thing goes broke, someone else will lose it and we shall not. But, if the works succeed in turning out the amount of oil that it proposes to turn out, we shall, in fact, be paying something like £3 a ton subsidy for every ton of coal that the works use directly and indirectly. I do not see the President of the Board of Trade there, but I see his extraordinarily able assistant. The right hon. Gentleman has been explaining to the assembled nations of the world that it is extraordinarily wrong for them to cut to ribbons our trades, like shipping, by paying subsidies to their competitors. I am very pleased to see his sympathy with the unfortunate tax-fodder of Italy and France and the rest of them, but, if
it is wrong that one of our trades should be spoiled by a subsidy that the Italians have to pay, why is it right that the oil industry, which is making profits, should be spoiled by a subsidy that we have to pay?
I come to another point. I raise this not primarily as specially relevant to this case of coal and oil. As public works go, this is a good thing of its kind. It might be worse. The Government have tackled this problem under pressure. I am sure they did not want to do it, but they felt that they must do something to show the strong hand, and they did this. If they wanted to put these miners to work, they could have got between four and five times the result in terms of miners' employment by using the money to buy coal and burn it at the pithead, just as the Brazilians are doing with coffee. That would at least have had the advantage of giving the children of Durham a nice Guy Fawkes bonfire for nothing. They could have got four or five times as many miners at work and taken off the market four or five times as much coal for the same expense as they are incurring in this way. But that would have been old-fashioned. So they go to some ingenious chemist, and he says: "I have £1,000,000, and we will spend the lot on pipes. I will take another £1,000,000 and put in a furnace and heat it up to 400 or 500 degrees Fahrenheit, and I will take another £1,000,000—altogether it is about £3,000,000—and I will put in a pump and pump it all up under some terrific pressure, then I will add a catalyst,. a sinking fund and a deficit, and there you have your highly modern synthetic petrol. You could have sent someone round the corner to a Shell-Mex shop to buy the same quality of petrol at half the price, but that is too old-fashioned and too unimaginative and too inactive for a modern Government to bother with.
On their own showing, the total amount of saving on unemployment will be about £800,000 in these four years, and it will cost us something in the nature of £4,000,000 in loss of revenue. These figures are not in dispute. If this thing is a success at all and turns out the oil, we shall lose £4,000,000 in revenue in the course of the four years, and by doing that by this huge and elaborate machinery of public works we shall only
get the result that we could have got by spending £800,000.
I come to yet another point. Objections to the complications of the whole machinery of public works are legion. We are always hearing a lot about gluts. The Minister of Agriculture preaches many attractive sermons on the subject of gluts. Surely to goodness, if there is one thing in the world of which there is a glut, if there is one thing of which we want less, it is oil. In fact, if you read the accounts of the annual meetings of the oil companies, they are pouring the oil back into the ground when they have got it up under its own. pressure. The President of the United States is threatening to prosecute people because they will not stop turning out oil. While they are pouring oil away, or prosecuting people for getting it where it is cheap, we tax our unfortunate taxpayers in order to produce it where it is extraordinarily dear. That is the way you cure a glut. I do not profess to be a clever man. I know that the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Agriculture can explain almost anything—even themselves. If they can explain that, I shall be very grateful.
Take another aspect of the same thing. We are always hearing that the real trouble with the world is with the raw material producing countries. They are on their uppers. They do not know what to do with themselves because the price of their produce is falling. We had upstairs the Aga Khan speaking to a great and appreciative audience of supporters of the Government and explaining the importance of the Mohammedan area. He was showing that the Mohammedan area was a raw material producing area with great prospects for British trade. So we go and help them. The one thing that the Persians have to export is oil, and we own a good deal of it. The British Government are not satisfied with hitting their taxpayers in the neck. They want to hit themselves as shareholders in the neck. We fought an expensive war in the Near East to get hold of a mandate and to take pipelines from Persia to the Mediterranean. When we, have got hold of the oil in 1923-24—when we have discovered a way of getting cheap oil—we say, "That is all right. Now that at last we can get that oil cheap, now, when we are saying how important it is to safeguard the interests of our raw
material countries, we will go to extreme expense and great risk to produce what you are having to pour away in order to get it at double the price."
One last aspect, and it is most important. The oil-producing and distributing industry is one of the outstanding industries that manage in some extraordinary way to carry on their business, to give regular and good employment to their workpeople, to improve year by year and to pay handsome dividends. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. S. Samuel) is not here. I should like the opportunity of helping him to bring himself up-to-date, because he is on the wrong lines. He ought not to be paying his workpeople wages out of his profits. We ought to be doing it out of subsidies—out of the rates and taxes. He ought not to be managing his own business and making a profit. W,, ought to make him a market supply committee, or rationalise him and make his life a misery to him somehow. Once it was a good thing to look after your own affairs when you could borrow money cheaply and make a profit. Now we have altered all that. Now you raise the price of everything with the aid of rates and taxes and overheads so that you cannot make any profit unless you get 5 per cent. Then you muck about with the credit of the country so that neither the Government nor anyone else can borrow under 6 per cent. Then you have a scheme. That is the time to start borrowing money and to cure unemployment. If Shell-Mex and a few of the others want to be in the swim they will have to alter their whole system of running.
Whither is this country bring led? We had a Conservative Government a few years ago, and they pottered about with a few old age pensions and a certain amount of half-hearted Socialism, and the result was not highly satisfactory to them. I am not afraid that this Government will go the whole hog in public works, but they may easily go sufficiently far to spoil the chances of their own policy without going nearly far enough to satisfy or to get results on the lines of a Socialist policy. Within the last year or so, simply by carrying out old-fashioned methods, they have produced an increase of employment out of all proportion to anything that could have been
done by public works, and have put 500,000 more men into employment. Taking the extremists' own figures, it would mean borrowing £50,000,000 or £60,000,000 to get those results. I beg of the Government to carry out to the strictest conclusion the line of policy which they have stated this afternoon, and which the President of the Board of Trade stated at the Conference. They have had their flutter, and as we are rising on Friday they cannot do any more harm for some time. There is something wrong in a capitalist society saying that it is not a capitalist society. You cannot run a capitalist society on Communist lines, but with strict attention to business you may be able to get a capitalist society to run itself in its own old-fashioned way. What you cannot do—and what would invariably lead to disaster—is to try and be leaders of a capitalist State, to be ashamed of what you are doing and of your party, so that your whole policy is based on the theory that Government action and interference is that to which you are really looking to get you out of the mess. As a matter of fact, your messes are always entirely due to the fact that this Government and other Governments over a long period of years have interfered in every conceivable way with business. Perhaps certain hon. Members, if they are ever returned, will desire to carry out a policy on those lines. But we should not indulge in these dangerous little flutters of going into a private bar for a nip although we pretend to be teetotalers. If they want that sort of thing, they must go the whole hog. For my part, I welcome the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the President of the Board of Trade at the Conference, and I hope that they will continue to carry out in practice the policy therein outlined.

7.35 p.m.

Dr. McLEAN: I am unfortunate in having to follow my hon. Friend the Member Central Southwark (Mr. Horobin) who succeeded in making economics interesting and indeed somewhat amusing, and I am afraid that what I have to say will, by comparison, be extremely dull. We have been discussing the national and international aspects of the utilisation of public works to provide employment and to aid the revival of industry. I wish to make one or two remarks on the
economics of the matter and upon certain practical considerations. The fundamental requirement is that the public works to be constructed shall have an economic background. By that I mean that the works will result in such increased production for which there is a more or less assured market as will justify the capital expenditure and also meet the interest and maintenance charges. The proposals put before the World Economic Conference referred to works giving an assured economic yield, which can only mean that they must have an economic background such as I have described. The words "an assured economic yield" are contained in a resolution of the International Labour Conference to which the chairman of the International Labour Office called the attention of the Economic Commission of the World Economic Conference. The resolution was in these terms:
To set on foot immediately large-scale public works giving an assured economic yield, particularly in those countries where funds at present are remaining unused.
The International Labour Office Report on Unemployment and Public Works issued in 1931 contained recommendations based upon the theory that public works should be advanced in times of depression and retarded in the following boom. The object was to help to maintain prices during depression, and then to reduce construction in the boom so as to keep down prices. The report was based upon the conditions of normal times and upon the understanding that at such times there exists a sufficient number of public works which may be advanced. Inquiries which I made at Geneva in 1931 confirmed this fact, and also elicited the important fact that the works were intended to have an economic background, and further that they were supposed to form part of a development plan for the region. It is evident that there are public works outside the economic category, which are more social in character, such as slum clearance and public health works. The Government have recognised this distinction.
Considering first the national aspect, it has never been shown that there exists any large-scale scheme of public works in the United Kingdom awaiting construction—works which have an economic background sufficient to justify the authorities in undertaking them. In this
category I would include works such as the proposed Forth Bridge, the Forth and Clyde Ship Canal, the Humber Bridge, railways main line electrification, and the Severn Barrage. In the case of the Severn Barage the Committee definitely reported that the economic background would need to be studied before any decision was taken regarding construction. With regard to land and drainage proposals, it will often be found that the economic value of the land when reclaimed has not been considered. In the United Kingdom we have already advanced our programme. of construction to what appears to be the economic limit. Perhaps when complete town and regional planning schemes have been provided under the Act of 1932, based upon the national industrial development surveys now being carried out by the Board of Trade, there may be disclosed further economic schemes of public works of importance, the construction of which may be advanced.
In considering the international aspect of the problem, the question before the World Economic Conference was the construction of national programmes of public works in other countries, and we were invited to assist financially by means of loans. The vital question with regard to foreign countries is whether, and by what means, it was proposed to control the expenditure of any loan so that it would be used only upon works having an economic background. Our experience with loans for development in other countries has been somewhat discouraging, even in the case of the Dominions where one might have thought that. some control would have been possible. For example, the British Financial Mission to Australia in 1928 reported that they were unanimously of opinion that in recent years Australia had spent too much money unprofitably on development schemes which were undertaken without sufficient regard to the probable financial and economic results. Again, in Sir Nicholas Lockyer's report in 1926 on the financial position of Tasmania there was much the same sort of criticism of the large developments under loans which took place in the island. There were examples of railways, roads, power stations and other works which had been constructed too far in advance of requirements without any thought evidently of the markets for the products of the de-
velopment. The result, of course, was financial disaster. There was difficulty in meeting the interest and maintenance charges, which one knows from engineering experience may sometimes amount to a very considerable figure. This method of development is contrary to the finding of the World Economic Conference, which is, I believe, that production and development must be co-ordinated in respect of the market available. In all these circumstances it is difficult to see how the Government could possibly have taken up any position other than that contained in the statement made to the Conference by the President of the Board of Trade on the 13th July. The statement was in clear terms and, translated, would be understood and appreciated by all our foreign friends.

7.45 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel KERR: I have listened with great interest to the speeches that have been delivered and I am glad to find that there have been few speeches that have not really been constructive. I hope the ideas that have been put forward by right hon. and hon. Members will be of some help to the Government. I feel very strongly that at a moment like this, in the crisis of our nation, we should put forward our ideas, as I know the Government would wish that even humble Members like myself should do, because it is quite possible that there may be something useful in them. There is one point, which I think is of the greatest importance, that has not been sufficiently pushed home during the Economic Conference and it is this, that we do not in this country push the idea enough that we are the greatest buyers in the world. Our position in that respect is a very strong one and I feel that if we were bold enough to put forward that position sufficiently we could call the tune a great deal more than we have done.
The President of the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary have done splendid work in bringing about the Agreements with Denmark and Argentina, but we ought to have had more of our own way. Why should we not say something like this: "We will buy from you but we will only buy from you if you buy from us an equivalent." I would like to see reciprocity exercised far more in regard to other things. One gets a list and one sees the difference in the amount
that we buy from other nations and the amount they buy from us. There are very few instances in which there is not an enormous difference in favour of the other nations. If the keynote of the World Economic Conference had been reciprocity between nations, and if the nations would agree that if they sold to a nation they would buy from that nation, surely there is no limit to the trade that might be conducted in the world. If we say to a nation: "We will help you with your unemployed by buying from you, on condition that you will do exactly the same thing from us," we should do far better. The Government ought to bear more in mind the fact that we are the great consuming market of the world, and to push home that we will not buy from nations who will not reciprocate.
I am very delighted to find that the Government are against public works which are not of a remunerative character. If the Government embark on public works of any sort—I do not mind what they are—and there is no financial profit in those works, it means that ultimately the burden is going to come upon the shoulders of the already over-weighted taxpayers. Therefore, I most cordially congratulate the Government on taking a very strong stand in that matter. I should like also to say a few words in regard to the Empire. I do not know whether hon. Members are aware that there is a sort of invasion going on within the Empire. During the last week I have had sent to me the particulars of certain charters which exist in Canada to-day which are supported by various nations whose nationals are already in Canada, and who receive assistance from their Governments to settle in Canada. These arrangements are very well organised. Information is given. These particular nations assist their nationals to go to Canada, they finance them when they go, they settle them and look after them afterwards. So far as I know there is no organisation backed by this country as those organisations are backed by their respective countries.
I was told the other day, and I believe I am right in the figures, that 55 per cent. of the people in Canada to-day are non-British. That is a very serious position and it is increasing year after year. In the last 10 years there have been 600,000 non-British people settled in Canada. I
do not know how many people have gone from this country in that period, but it must be very much less. When this sort of subtle invasion is going on, it is a matter in which the Government ought to take the greatest possible interest and do their utmost to remedy. Here is justification for the Government spending money. Here is public work that could be done in promoting some sound, large organisation to assist in settling our own people in the British Empire. If we do not populate the British Empire with our own people we shall gradually find that it is becoming less British and less patriotic. Therefore, I hope the Government will think sympathetically in that direction and see if something cannot be done to populate the Empire with our own people. There is a danger that other nations who are congested and who wish to expand, if they see this great Empire of ours suffering from want of people, from want of settlement, with enormous resources entirely undeveloped, will begin to get jealous and say: "Why should we not have some of it?" In the end there will he very great danger of war as a result of that condition. I urge the Government to try their best to see if they cannot formulate some very large scheme, which could begin in a small way, that would assist in developing the Empire and in populating the Empire by British people.

7.52 p.m.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: I am very glad that the Father of the House has returned to the House. I do not intend to deal with his Grimm's Fairy Tales or with the even more fantastic imaginings of his own mind, but I should like to put a few practical considerations regarding his agricultural policy. He told us that his proposition was that the Government should settle 500,000 families on the land. Before embarking on such a policy we ought to consider exactly how, where and at what cost those 500,000 families are going to be settled. Are they going to displace those experienced farmers who for years have been losing on farming the best land in England, even with all the experience that they have behind them, or, alternatively, are they going to be put on those deer forests which used to be such a favourite subject of the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the Noble Lord will look into the matter he will find that the only people who have done fairly well in the last few years are the smallholders.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: Yes, under favourable conditions in some cases, with public assistance, they have done moderately well, but these things are governed very largely by economic considerations. Where conditions are favourable to smallholdings you will find smallholdings growing up, but where they are not favourable to smallholdings you will find that the land is farmed in large units. We shall make a big mistake if we attempt to dispossess the existing farmers, who in many cases are finding it very difficult to make money, or if we embark upon the reclamation of land that is at present not under cultivation. The agricultural community would be interested to know what subsidy it is proposed to pay to these 500,000 families of smallholders. Are they going to be subsidised to compete with people who find it difficult to make a living or are they to be left to take their chance with the present prices of agricultural commodities? These are practical considerations.
The real problem about agriculture is the question of price. So long as agricultural prices remain where they are agricultural problems will remain exceedingly acute. The right hon. Gentleman gave a long list of the requirements of agriculture—new holdings, water supplies and so forth. Not a single one of these things would present any permanent difficulty if the price of agricultural produce began to rise. They could be dealt with quite easily. They could be dealt with to some extent if the agricultural industry was relieved from the crushing burden of Death Duties, but even without that, if we could see any substantial rise in the price of agricultural produce all these needs of agriculture could be met in a comparatively short time. The problem of agriculture is that prices are too low and until that state of things alters it is no good talking about putting additional population on the land. I believe that proposal is the most fantastic of all the proposals put forward by way of public works, but not very much more fantastic than some of the others.
I rose for the purpose of saying how whole-heartedly I support my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in his firm, definite and unequivocal statement that he will refuse to countenance additional schemes of public works. I can scarcely say how delighted I was with that statement. It is almost the only statement from any member of the Government or of 'any recent Government in regard to which I have found it possible to express entire satisfaction. I hope the Government will not whittle down or modify that statement. What do these proposals about public works amount to You say to the taxpayer: "My poor fellow, things are very bad for you. We are very sorry that times are so bad, but we will take what money you have left and spend it for you on something that you do not want, on something on which you would not spend the money yourself, on something which you cannot sell or export or exchange for something which you do want." There is not one of these various things which the ordinary machinery of commerce in the City of London could not bring about if they had what the hon. Member for Tradeston (Dr. McLean) describes as an economic background.
By an economic background one means that you examine the thing first and find out if it is going to pay. If there is money in it we may be perfectly certain that the ordinary resources of the capitalist system will, sooner or later, embark upon it, if they are assured that those resources are safe, that they are not going to be interfered with or despoiled by this Government or subsequent Governments, and are not hampered or interfered with by this House. This House does not always encourage public works. Only two or three days ago we discussed the Adelphi Estate Bill, and hon. Members opposite, and I am sorry to say certain hon. Members on this side, opposed that Bill. In that Bill there was involved public work of considerable magnitude, which hon. Members did everything possible to obstruct. It is that spirit in the House of Commons and in various Governments which has done a great deal to restrict expenditure on such enterprise.
I believe that there is none of these schemes of public works that could not be brought about if people had tolerable
Security in their property and enterprise and if they could feel tolerable confidence that they were not going to be interfered with and their operations destroyed by the Government. I hope that the Government will adhere firmly to their decision not to embark on these new schemes. The right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) gave us examples as to why it should not be done. He included practically everything that has been done by any Government, and, except in the case of roads, he showed clearly that in the case of almost everything else, the subsidising of coal or corn or beet, the Government have always gone wrong. That is not mere accident. The fact is that there is not scope for the Government. If there is an economic background these things can be done by other people, and there is no room, for the Government to butt in. There is only one important scheme of public expenditure which requires doing if there are many people who believe in public expenditure on relief works, and that is a substantial addition to every county asylum throughout the country.

8.2 p.m.

Sir GEORGE GILLETT: In his profoundly interesting speech the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) referred to the very limited outlook of some of the nations of the world and used it as an argument to suggest that it was not desirable to go on with the present policy of conferences. He said that the World Economic Conference was absolutely dead. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is not one of those who says that because certain things seem to be dominant that we have, therefore, to accept things as they are and make no attempt to change them. If questions of disarmament and economic questions are to be solved it is essential to have conferences. If you are going to replace war by something else in the nature of law it must take time and also take the form of gathering the nations of the world together in conference. Many of the economic problems we are facing to-day can only be solved by a conference between the leading nations. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was a great mistake to go on with the idea of holding the conference after America had gone off the Gold Standard. It is easy after the event to say what
ought to have been done, but I would remind the House that at the time when the Conference was meeting some Of the leading bankers of this and other countries, including the United States, met in order to see whether it was possible to arrange a temporary understanding in regard to the stabilisation of exchanges.
Apart from the question of War debts and debts the greatest hindrance to trade revival throughout the world is the condition of the exchanges. I do not want to criticise the American policy but the moment America embarked upon the policy she is attempting to carry out today and it became impossible for her to agree to a stabilisation of the exchanges, she praztical killed the Conference; and we shall only get going again when we have solved the question of the exchanges. I am not certain that the Conference is absolutely dead, because when we heard that New York had gone off the gold standard we said that nothing worse could happen than to have a. struggle on the exchanges between the great nations of the world. Yet to-day we are left absolutely in the position that traders have no guarantee as to what will be the action of any nation in regard to its exchange position. That is a serious position which will have to be faced.
While I welcome the statement that one day we shall go back, in some form or other, to the Gold Standard, it may be many years, I confess that the argument of those who have suggested some other form of standard has not convinced me of the possibility of such a system. The whole question of the exchanges has been made more difficult by the statement of the American President; we do not know whether he has it in mind to go back to the Gold Standard or not. Mr. Cole in one of his books has stated clearly that we cannot expect to have a stable price level and also an exchange which is going to be a stable exchange between the nations of the world; we shall have to make a choice between one or the other. But to a great exporting nation like ourselves the first essential is to have a stable exchange amongst the nations of the world. The profoundly interesting attempt that is being made in America to reorganise trade and industry has led some people to suggest that we may do something of the same kind. Such a course is absolutely impossible for this country. We have this extraordinary
fact in connection with the action of America, that while Germany, France and Italy were literally forced off the Gold Standard the United States deliberately gave it up at a time when they were holding the largest supplies of gold in the world, and when they had a favourable trade balance. They considered that by a threat of inflation they would raise prices and at the same time allow a depreciation of their money, which would also assist in raising prices. It may be possible for America to do this and carry it out successfully, because if any country can stop a fall in their exchange when they want to do so the United States are in that position with their large stores of gold. We have, therefore, to bear this consideration in mind, that if we followed the same policy. as the United States we should have to guard against the danger of a collapse of our exchange such as would bring us face to face with a very serious position.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted; and 40 Members being present—

Sir G. GILLETT: I was calling attention to the question of a rise in prices and that the policy of the President of the United States in taking action to raise prices in America is being used by many as an argument for this country to follow the same policy. One of the difficulties that we have to face at the present time is that those who are supporting a rise of prices in this country are not at all clear as to what they have in mind. If you read the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer you will discover that he refers to wholesale prices, while other hon. Members desire a rise not only in wholesale prices but also in retail prices. I wonder whether many of those who support a rise in prices realise what they are asking for. If we are to have a rise in prices to get back to the level of 1928 we should have to put up our wholesale prices by 40 per cent. and our retail prices by 22 per cent. Our policy in going off gold was not followed by the usual rise in prices which would have taken place because the fall in the gold prices of the world to a large extent neutralised the rise which would automatically have taken place, but the nation whose currency is depreciated technically should have a rise in prices. We escaped that
rise and, therefore, the worst evils connected with a depreciated exchange passed us by.
Many people have not realised the dangerous position in which we were placed as a result of being forced to go off the Gold Standard. I trust that the Government are not going to be too easily allured by the idea that we are going to benefit to a great extent by a too hurried rise in prices. It is not going to be of benefit to this country to have a too great rise in prices. A limited rise is probably beneficial. I was impressed by a letter which Lord Bradbury wrote to the "Times" the other day, which placed before us the policy which it is desirable this country should follow. A question also raised by those who are anxious to see a rise in prices is what is to be the monetary policy to bring it about. If we compare the deposits in the leading banks of this country with eight years ago we find that they have risen from £1,600,000,000 to £1,900,000,000, but advances have fallen. Investments, on the other hand, have risen from £300,000,000 to £500,000,000. The argument is often advanced that if you have plenty of money it will have an effect on industry in course of time. Technically that is correct, but it may take a considerable time before it has any effect, and the first result is what we have witnessed this year and last year, that these sums available for industry are only used to a limited extent. It is that which has accentuated the feeling among many people that in some way or other the policy of the Government might accelerate the further use of the large sums of money that are to-day lying idle upon the London money market. I think I may place myself in the category of those whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to as supporters of the Government who think that something on these lines might be done to a moderate extent.
There is one point that has not been mentioned to-day. The only hope ultimately of a real recovery in this country is in the increased confidence of the business world and of our people generally. That confidence we have already strengthened to a great extent by the fact that the Budget is balanced, and by the fact that the financial and banking system of the country has withstood
the storm. But we have also to bear in mind that during recent years the national income of this country has fallen by some hundreds of millions, while the national expenditure and the expenditure of the municipalities have remained stationary. Therefore the percentage of money that is being taken for national purposes out of the national purse is heavier than it was. I shall not go into the question whether a change of system, Socialism and so forth, would cure the evil. I talk only of the system as it is.
While you are dependent on private enterprise to supply the wealth of the nation, there is a danger point beyond which you cannot go in taking money for public works. I believe that the policy of the Government in regard to public works should not be the spending of a lot of their own money and putting out great Government loans. The money market to-day is rather overburdened with the amount of Government stock on it. If you put out a great deal more the only result is that you gradually increase the cost of every loan that the Government have to raise for other purposes. Some organisations have been started recently and they were referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel). They are bodies like the Electricity Commissioners and the London Passenger Transport Board. Some such body, I believe, might provide a great impetus in the housing of the working classes. That work might be carried out if there were formed some organisation of a semi-public character which could take up the improvement of a great deal of property that does not necessarily come under any scheme connected with slum clearance, but property which is overcrowded and unsatisfactory, and insanitary to a. certain extent, though it may not come under legal condemnation. I believe that some form of public utility organisation with a certain limited backing from the Government, such as assistance in guaranteeing the first loan, might start a, great piece of housing work without any very great expense to the Government compared with the large sums of money that are being expended now. If the Government will do for the traffic of the country what they have done for London traffic they will find that a new organisation of that kind would automatically begin to develop on certain definite lines.
I cannot help thinking that there are methods of helping industry, not by direct Government grant, but by Government initiative. For years traders have been complaining that there is a deficiency in our financial system in regard to export credits overseas. They complain that they can get only short-time credit, while competitors in Germany and elsewhere get longer terms. Cannot the Government take up that matter? If I want to send goods to Dublin I can go to the export credits department and get insurance to a limited extent, so long as the Government are satisfied with the guarantees and so forth, but if I want to send goods to Ulster I am told that the Government scheme does not work there. It would be the same if I wish to send goods to Yorkshire. It is a small matter, but it shows how, instead of having great sums of money, running into hundreds of millions, spent on roads and public works of that kind, the Government might take up some of these organisations, semi-Government organisations, which are required at the present time. They could take advantage of the great sums of money that are now waiting on the money market. I see no reason why we should not accelerate the process of getting that money into use.
I welcome the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the policy of the Government in connection with exchange. I believe there is nothing else that can be done, except to wait until America has had an opportunity of seeing how her new policy is working, and until America can say to us that she is ready to come definitely to an understanding. That is the crux of the position. It is most unfortunate that just at this time in the history of this country and the world we should have to wait for that understanding. But I believe that the work of the Prime Minister in trying to bring nations together, whether for the purpose of disarmament or for curing our economic ills, is absolutely sound work. I do not think that failures or difficulties should daunt him in going on with it. To give up would be a policy of despair, and the country would be disappointed.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. BOOTHBY: The time is short and my remarks must be telegraphic. Therefore the hon. Member who has just
spoken will forgive me if I do not follow him in his interesting remarks. I am sorry that he has gone back from the position that he used to take up in the good old days when he and Mr. Dalton used to advocate almost uncontrolled inflation, and that he is now a disciple of Lord Bradbury. The end of the hon. Gentleman's speech seemed a good deal more hopeful than the earlier part of it. On the subject of public works I would like to quote to the House passages from a letter which I have received from the Secretary of the Building Industries National Council:
Given reasonable indication of probable demands, the building industry can make adequate provision ahead, and can eliminate costs and penalties which must inevitably be incurred when demand for labour and supplies is subject to violent fluctuations and obscured by uncertainty.
The whole outlook is befogged by uncertainty to-day, due to the confusion created by differing authoritative statements as to the Government's intention in respect of public works programmes generally.
Quite apart from the question whether a public works policy in any form is accepted by the Government, the building industry feels that the public and the industry are entitled to know what the Government's policy is, and earnestly appeals to every member to press for a clear and unambiguous statement from a responsible Minister. The matter is one of far-reaching national importance, entirely transcending party considerations.
There is a certain amount to be said from that point of view. An industry like that has been bedevilled by uncertainty as to what the Government policy really is, not only on public works, which is a mere item although an important one in the general economic policy of the Government, but on everything. I am a little disappointed this evening because I do not think that the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer gets us any further. We do not know any more now about the policy and intentions of the Government covering the whole economic field, than we did this morning. As time goes by, I am more and more impressed by the danger—inherent perhaps in the Government's own constitution—that it is a Government without a theme. It had a theme when it took office at a time of supreme crisis in order to save the country. Later it had a theme from which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who sit opposite differed openly, when it was carrying through a protective policy. Now it does not seem to have
a theme to meet the completely changed conditions in the world of to-day. That seems to me very dangerous.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer preaches inflation to the extent that he says that it is desirable to raise prices. But he practises deflation. In fact the policy of the Government during the last six months has been one of deflation as I shall endeavour to show. The President of the Board of Trade still talks in the language of the economic nationalism of the nineteenth century. Meanwhile, the Minister of Agriculture, in a corner as it were, is carrying through with immense gusto a policy of almost violent economic nationalism. The Lord President of the Council looks on, as a kind of benignant referee, while Members of the Cabinet are playing these different economic games in their respective departments and spheres. One Minister says that the Government are in favour of national development, of raising prices, of public works; another Minister says they have choked down the whole idea and takes active steps to do the exact opposite.
In trying to diagnose the trouble I have come to the conclusion that it is to be found, to a large extent, in the lack of effective leadership at the very top. I think it is time that somebody asked the Prime Minister, who very seldom makes an appearance in this House, to state clearly whether he has any idea of where he is going or what, ultimately, he wants? I have been a close and earnest student of the observations of the Prime Minister during the last 10 or 12 years. During that period he has occupied, in one office or another, a commanding position in British political life. I have not yet been able to discover an occasion on which the right hon. Gentleman has given to the party which he happened to be leading at the moment, or to the country as a whole, a clear lead on any of the vital economic questions which are disturbing our minds at the present time.
I discovered an article which he wrote only three or four years ago in which he actually said that the present system was breaking down because it was a capitalist system and as such was bound to fail, and that the only hope for a solution of our economic troubles and difficulties was the application of Socialism to our national life. I wonder does he still hold
that view, or, if he does not, what has caused him to change? Perhaps he was never sure. Even when he was the head of a Socialist Government the right hon. Gentleman did not attempt a quarter of the Socialism which Mr. Roosevelt is actually putting into operation to-day in the United States.
To deal with immediate issues, when the Prime Minister was under Mr. Roosevelt's influence in Washington he made a clear declaration that public works would create conditions favourable to business recovery. Then since he got back to this country he has authorised my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to make the perfectly clear and unequivocal statement that we have terminated our schemes and that we will not reopen them. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has pointed out, the President of the Board of Trade is nothing if he is not lucid, and when he makes statements on policy we know where we are. But those two remarks, however my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade may try to conceal the fact, are directly contradictory. The manifesto signed and issued by the Prime Minister in Washington is a direct contradiction of the statement made on behalf of the Government at the Conference. I do not see how that fact can possibly be concealed. I would only say, that it is rather unfair, to the building industry, for instance, to be faced with successive Ministerial declarations of that kind. What we want is a clear authoritative statement on economic policy from someone who can give it, either the head of the Government himself, or, possibly, the Lord President of the Council.
The Prime Minister seems to have gone back from the public works idea and the idea of expansion, during the last few weeks. He appears to be less enthusiastic about it now than he was previously. But I do not think that either he or the President of the Board of Trade ought to judge the whole idea and conception underlying public works and public development by the miserable and petty efforts made by the Socialist Government of 1929 and 1930. Those efforts were made under conditions differing fundamentally from the conditions of to-day. They were made with completely free imports,
accompanied by violent deflation. They were on a very petty scale and in those circumstances never had any chance of success. Until recently the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Trade obviously based their main hopes on international economic co-operation, and therefore on the World Conference. The Conference has failed and the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister have been compelled, through no fault of their own, but by the march of events, to adapt their minds and their policy to a world the predominant feature of which is economic nationalism.
What is their policy going to be in the changed conditions? What are they going to do about it? That is the question which has been proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. I personally believe, as my right hon. Friend knows, that a measure of inflation is necessary among other things in this country, and that a certain amount of carefully controlled and regulated expenditure on national development and public works must play a part. Such a measure is necessary for two reasons—first to relieve us of the burden of internal debt which has become intolerable, and secondly, to maintain the balance of the national Budget in the future. I could not help being amused at the direct contradiction which appeared in the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for Western Derbyshire (Marquess of Hartington). He said that agriculture was being smashed, and that that was due to low prices and to the burden of Death Duties. Then in the last part of the speech he declaimed vigorously against public works of any sort or kind. The only possible way to raise prices and diminish the burden of Death Duties is by an expansionist policy in which public works must play a part, although I admit not necessarily a predominant part. I have given my reasons for that belief so often that I do not propose to repeat them now. But the only alternative to a policy of what I call controlled inflation, is to repudiate a large part of our internal debt and to make economies running up to about £100,000,000 a year. If the Government are prepared to do that, we shall have to consider their proposals very seriously but I see no other alternative except successive unbalanced Budgets and the indefinite continuance of a burden of direct taxation which will cripple indus-
try and make a real industrial revival in this country almost impossible.
I do not suggest for a moment that we should follow the United States Government, either slavishly or even go so far as they have done in certain directions. I think we should pursue an absolutely independent economic policy of our own, independent of the United States and independent of Europe, designed primarily in the interests of this country and secondarily in the interests of the British Empire. I suggest that, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade are serious when they say that they think a rise in wholesale prices is desirable, they will have to pursue a very different policy from the policy that they have pursued during the last four or five months, when the idea of international economic cooperation was, shall I say, in the ascendency, because what they have in fact done, while proclaiming that they want to raise prices, which clearly involves inflation in some form or another, is that they have maintained taxation at a crushing, a crippling level, in order to balance this year's Budget on paper. They have virtually pegged sterling to the gold bloc during the last six months, and they have guaranteed loans to Austria and Palestine, but no loans at all on any substantial scale for internal development, either good or bad, in this country; and whatever else this policy may be—it may be desirable in the long run—it is not inflationary and it will not lead to a rise in prices. If they continue with that policy, they ought not to pay lip service to the principle which President Roosevelt is always advocating, namely, that world recovery is ultimately dependent on a rise in world commodity prices.
Meanwhile, we cannot get away from the fact that we have a decaying agricultural industry in this country. I do not agree with everything that my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said, but in the main he is right in drawing attention to agriculture as possibly the root problem which confronts this country at the present time, and in saying that we have never had for the last 20 years, and have not now, a policy adequate to deal with it. We have grave unemployment, we have shocking housing conditions still, whatever anybody may say, and we have
not yet evolved a policy adequate to deal with any of these questions, yet we have the finest industrial and agricultural population in the world, the finest agricultural land in the world, the finest farming land, and we have the finest opportunities for development overseas in the Crown Colonies of the Empire. Can any hon. Member say that in his unbiased opinion either this Government or any Government since the War have taken sufficient advantage of those advantages and opportunities which we possess? I do not think so.
I humbly suggest that this nation wants leadership more than anything else, and it has not had leadership of the kind to which it responds best ever since 1918. We have seen the response of the United States to leadership—whether their policy is right or wrong is another matter—during the last few months, and we should not do well to disparage the efforts which President Roosevelt has been making to haul, not only America, but the whole world out of the economic depression. Failure in the United States can only bring greater misery here, and we ought to wish him every success in the efforts which he has been making, even although we may not agree with all the steps that he is taking. The Prime Minister, in the Government, has a finer machine, from both an economic and a political point of view, to operate in this country. He has, if I may say so, a much more stable people, and I seriously suggest that now, in the wake of the International Conference, when people are feeling a little bit uneasy about the future and want to be encouraged and given some hope, which is what we all live on in the long run almost entirely, is the time for the Government to come out with at any rate a clear policy and give a definite lead to the people of this country.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. GURNEY BRAITHWAITE: The House always listens with great interest to my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) on these financial and economic problems, and had time permitted, there is much that I should have liked to follow along the lines which he has opened, but I hope he will excuse me for the same reason that he excused himself from following the hon. Member who preceded him, because I know the
hon. Gentleman opposite is anxious to rise shortly in order to wind up the Debate for the Opposition. I wish to concentrate upon what I believe to be a real peril which faces the industries of this country as a result of the grave events which the House has been debating to-day. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen has said, as he is entitled to say, that President Roosevelt has embarked upon a courageous policy, and that he wishes him success. But just as the hon. Member is entitled to make that statement, so are those of us who think that the actions of President Roosevelt are likely to end, not only in disaster for his own people, but in unfortunate results in this country as well, entitled to give expression to those views. The Roosevelt policy has been described as a new and courageous one. Courageous it certainly is, just as a man who jumps over a precipice is courageous. Whether the action has fortunate results for the wife and children whom he leaves at home is another matter. But so far as the policy being new is concerned, I suggest that it is a policy as old, outworn, and discredited as many other policies which we on these benches have opposed from time to time.
Quite frankly, I see great danger to the manufacturing industries of this country during the next few months, and possibly before this House reassembles, and one of those dangers I am anxious to put before the Government. I think it likely that President Roosevelt's policy will result in a greatly increased production of manufactured goods in the United States. I think it is also likely that, try as he may, he will fail to absorb sufficient of his 12,000,000 unemployed, or whatever the figure may be, to create the necessary consuming power for that production. I can see America with a huge glut of surplus goods in a few months' time which have to be sold at knock-out prices somewhere; I can see this island as an attractive dumping ground for those goods; I can see the depreciated dollar, depreciated perhaps to six dollars to the £, being made the engine for the successful dumping of those goods and eliminating, almost in the twinkling of an eye, the duties which have been built up by our Government for the protection of those industries.
I think that those of us in the House of Commons who see that possibility
have our plain duty before us to-night, to warn the Government and to ask them to be prepared to take the necessary action. It is true that President Roosevelt is making heroic efforts. He has appointed a brains trust, and I note that of the five gentlemen composing it four are journalists. We might look with some trepidation upon the Government of this country summoning to their aid a brains trust consisting of Lord Beaverbrook, Mr. James Douglas, Mr. Hannen Swaffer and Mr. Randolph Churchill. That seems to be the king of machine that President Roosevelt is summoning his aid Badges and slogans are being issued promptly as the result of his wireless appeal, but slogans are not likely to get all those unemployed in America into work. One can see the backwash of overproduction resulting in further goods being thrown on to the British market, and my appeal to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Government is this. I am sure that whatever political differences we may have in this House, we all rejoice at the fact that there are roughly 460,000 more of our people at work than there were 12 months ago. I want the Government to see to it that they remain at work. I believe that an American crash is inevitable and that it will be the biggest crash which has taken place in the civilised world as we know it.
Reference has been made in the Debate —I believe by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) in his interesting speech—to the fact that our Government can take counsel with the Empire statesmen who are already in this country. We all know that there are difficulties between this Government and other Empire Governments over the Ottawa Agreements and other matters, but I think that much might be done through co-operation between our Ministers and Ministers from the Dominions to try and take action to deal with this menace, and if possible to hammer out some kind of currency agreement. The Government should now prepare machinery for definitely protecting our manufacturing industries against the consequences of de-valued currencies in the form of dumping by taking powers to impose sliding scale duties on the basis of those operating in some other countries. Despite the grave events of the last two months and the collapse, be it temporary or permanent, of the
Economic Conference, there are definite signs of improvement here at home. We hear a great deal of talk about the evils of economic nationalism, a phrase of which we have heard a lot during the past 18 months. But I have never felt that economic nationalism as such is necessarily a bad thing. I believe economic self-sufficiency to be a bad and harmful theory, but economic nationalism in reasonable doses will, I think, do no harm to a country in the position of this country.
There is no hope at all of effective cooperation with the United States while it remains in its present mood. Sooner or later the Government of the United States will have to conform to the thesis set out in the Note of the British Government to them in December last in connection with the War Debt. In the meantime, His Majesty's Government can, by acting boldly, retain the advantages for our industries which their tariff policy has given them, and they should be prepared seriously to protect those industries against the consequences of deliberately de-valued foreign currencies. The plight of the people of the United States must call forth the sympathy of all hon. Members. The position of that huge country, faced with a situation bordering upon panic, with something like 12,000,000 unemployed, not one of whom is receiving one half-penny of assistance from the State, is one with which the people of this country will look upon sympathetically. The people of this country, however, also look to their elected House of Commons and to the Government to see that they are preserved and protected from so lamentable a fate.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: The hon. Member who has just sat down has pointed out certain dangers that this country may incur through the stern economic conditions in the United States and the efforts that are being made to set that country on its legs again. The point that struck me in his speech was that his remedy to save us was, I gather, to be tariffs. It certainly struck me that any possibility of tariffs would be an extremely weak defence if the conditions were as he represented them. The hon. Gentleman drew a picture of the terrible plight of this great continent—a country which has been developed on the strictest lines of
capitalism, in which private enterprise has been given the freest range, and in which governmental interference has been extraordinarily weak; a country with every advantage of a virgin continent, producing almost everything that its people could need; and a country which has drawn its people from the most civilised nations of Europe. Yet that country has come to such an appalling smash. The speech seemed to me to chime in with the note of the whole of this Debate. I am afraid that the Debate hitherto has been such that it really gives the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade a great opportunity. I have here a copy of the Building Trades Bulletin, in which they describe the Government's policy as being confusion worse confounded; and it contains this note:
Let us hope that the forthcoming Debate will bring a clear statement of Government policy.
I think with all respect for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he has been in to bat and he has been dismissed with an extremely small score, and that it now remains for the President of the Board of Trade to go in and play a captain's innings. He has to meet a very varied assortment of bowling. I do not think that he has hitherto been subject to any body bowling; the body bowling directed by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) was directed against the Prime Minister, and he scored several hits. The general note of the Debate has been a profound pessimism, and even those who wished to congratulate the Government seemed to do it in a very peculiar way. We had a curious speech from the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne), who kept throwing roses at the Government, but every rose contained a thorn. He congratulated the Government on what they tried to do at the World Economic Conference, although he did not know what it was. He congratulated the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his Equalisation Fund, although he did not know for what it was going to be used. He congratulated him on buying gold, but he could not think why on earth he wanted it. It was, I think, one of the most earnest speeches I have heard as an exhibition of faith. Here was an hon. Member, a loyal and devoted follower of the Govern-
ment, trying to do his best to justify faith without any works.
We have not heard very much on this subject of works. The right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) supported a works programme, but I never quite know how long the right hon. Gentleman will march along with us. I can remember when he used to sit over there developing very big works programmes. Then he and his friends switched off on the great economy stunt that led to the report of the May Committee. At the same time, the right hon. Gentleman has so many qualifications that, although it is true that the motto of the Liberal party is no longer laissez faire, I think it is still laissez balancer. We never know on which side the right hon. Gentleman will come down or, if he has come down, how long it will be before he climbs back. On the whole, the right hon. Gentleman joined in the general chorus of wanting the Government to get on with the job.
We had an extraordinary speech from the Noble Lord the Member for West Derby (Marquess of Hartington). There the President of the Board of Trade really found a devout follower. He praised him; he thought his declaration against public works the best thing he had heard for a long time; but he wanted an economic background—I think his phrase was—and did not like his interferences with economic laws. He did not like housing subsidies, because he thought that if anything was worth while it was done by private enterprise, but it is curious that through all these months we have never heard his voice upraised when all these uneconomic efforts have been made in agriculture. It was a curious study of a mind. You may subsidise tomatoes, but you must not subsidise houses. You can subsidise wheat growing, but must not subsidise a bathing pool. You may subsidise, in one way or another, anything for agriculture, but you must not do anything for the workers. That is a very curious economic background. That, except for the vigorous attack of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), with which I agree, really made up the chorus—to-day, as we have all been warned, is to be specially a back benchers' day, and I am not going to take very long—and the general chorus cannot have been very encouraging to the Government.
So we come to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, We did hear something from him. He admits that we must introduce some new system, but he did not tell us what it was. He seemed to think that President Roosevelt was right to take a new line, but he had absolutely nothing to suggest himself. I was left puzzled—and again I hope the President of the Board of Trade will explain it—as to his attitude towards public works. I do not know whether he means that they should bring a profit to somebody, or whether he means that they are to be for the good of the community; I do not at all know what his real idea is with regard to works, either public or private. Let me give an instance. I believe that if I suggested that we should put up a big public garden somewhere, for the benefit of the workers, to be done by unemployed labour, with a State subsidy of £125,000, that that would offend against his criterion. On the other hand, this House has just given away £125,000 of value to some private landlords to erect some buildings on the Adelphi site. That is not considered by this House to offend in any way against that economic background.
We on these benches have a different economic background altogether from that. We are considering all the time what is best and most useful for this country. We consider that a vast number of works going on in the country to-day are absolute waste; or if they are not absolute waste they sin against the order of priority. For instance, the other night no one on the Government benches suggested that there was anything wrong in a nation like ours allowing money and labour to be expended on pulling down some beautiful buildings that are fully occupied in an area where there is a vast amount of surplus property and a vast amount of surplus office accommodation. No one suggested that there was anything uneconomic in that, although at the same time everybody knows that the proposals for slum clearance and housing are totally inadequate. That is where we entirely differ from this Government, because we look at the nation as a whole, and the Government never gets away from the criterion of private profit. Its whole attitude on this subject of public works betrays a mind that is absolutely steeped in an obsolete system. Still the idea comes out—it came out most clearly, perhaps, in the speech of the hon. Mem-
ber for Finsbury (Sir G. Gillett) that everything in the world must depend upon private profit.
We claim, and we shall be interested to have it denied, that your capitalist system is breaking down entirely to-day because of the failure of private profit as a motive power, and that it has utterly failed to get anything like a planned world. It is admitted that the World Economic Conference was composed, with the exception of one or two persons, wholly of people brought up in the capitalist philosophy, and inevitably every single one of them was thinking of his own particular interests. The result is that they all go away entirely discontented; the one person who has gone away satisfied is M. Litvinoff who, being more socially minded than anybody else, managed to make some successful arrangement for his country. It rather points to the entire failure of the capitalist system when all the capitalist countries meet together and the only one who gets anything out of the meeting is a Socialist. The reason is perfectly obvious—that when your countries meet together not a single country can look at matters from the broad point of view of the whole world.
The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs really followed much the same line. For all his speech the right hon. Member is as much a slave to the present system as is the right hon. Member for Darwen or the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the rest of us. When it was boiled down, the speech of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs amounted, really, to economic nationalism. I agree with him that we ought to develop our country. Where I disagree with him is in his diagnosis of the situation. It seemed to me that he did not carry his history far enough, or it was a very selected history. He gave a history of the conferences—of Lausanne and of Ottawa. There were many conferences before Lausanne. There was Versailles. I think his reading of what has happened to the world left out Versailles altogether. His idea was that all this extravagant economic nationalism was the result of the War generation; on the contrary, it is the post-War generation—not the generation who suffered from the War, but the generation who suffered from this awful peace. The real trouble is that after the War everybody was hoping for
reconstruction. We got, on the other hand, an attempt to rehabilitate an obsolete, out-of-date Capitalist system.
To turn to the immediate prospects and the question of what is the programme of this Government. The Government have now taken to referring us back always to something that was said in the past. If we ask what the Government policy is, they say, "It is the appropriate measures." If we ask what are the appropriate measures, we are told, "You will find that they were outlined by my right hon. Friend at some other date." Let any Member of this House go through the speeches made by the leading members of the Government in general Debate. I leave out for this purpose the Minister of Agriculture, who has been diligently cultivating his own particular patch of the garden. Take the Prime Minister, the Lord President of the Council, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade, and look through the speeches that they have made while this Government have been in power. You will not find a coherent economic outlook among the lot of them. You find that all those gentlemen are perpetually hanging between two things. On the one side they preach economic nationalism, and on the other side, and sometimes in the same Minister, they go in for inflation and deflation at the same time.
I want to ask one or two questions of the President of the Board of Trade, and particularly I would like to ask whether he entirely agrees with the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked whether his policy was to develop our internal purchasing power with a high-wage system, so as to make this a great market for our own goods, or whether he proposed to have a deflationary system and a low-wage system so as to conquer foreign markets. He did not answer that. He was pressed to answer it, and again he did not answer it, but he said that he wanted to raise prices. He explained that he meant a rise in wholesale prices, and that that would not mean a rise in retail prices except to a very small amount. I should like the President of the Board of Trade to explain that, because he is always very interested in prices. I want to know who, at the present time, is getting that large
difference between wholesale and retail prices. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was in the House when the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke, but he recognises that the producers of primary products are not getting enough. It is not suggested that we who consume those products should pay much more. but that it is possible for those producers to get a good deal more. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman will tell us where that is coming from. He will be able to tell us, I am sure, whether it is coming from the shipping, lines or whether it is coming from the middleman, and, if the latter, why they have allowed the rapacious middleman to make this enormous amount if it is to make all the difference to stabilisation. Is it the fact that the amounts which are going to the middleman are so large that they will make all the difference to the amount of purchasing power circulating in the world, rehabilitate those primary producing countries and set us going again? If that is so, who is getting those amounts?
If the right hon. Gentleman will answer that question, perhaps he will answer also the question put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) and tell us what is the Government's policy with regard to wages. Is it their policy that you should have high wages and shorter hours, or is it their idea that we should have low wages? Does he believe that the way to meet conditions now existing in the world is to try and increase the purchasing capacity of the peoples of the world, so that they will be able to consume more of the goods that are produced or does he believe in the policy which is actually being pursued, the policy of scarcity; that is to say, cutting down supplies of goods? We should like to know, because at the present time we have one thing practised and another preached. What is the good of raising prices if you are to have a low-wage system and people, because of the enhanced prices, are not able to buy any more? The Chancellor of the Exchequer is an extremely clear exponent of economics, but it has been suggested that since the policy of the Government is floppy, there is a certain inconvenience in the right hon. Gentleman being too clear. He is always clear, but he is very good at escaping from making too
definite statements. It does not matter to me so much, but he must realise that industries are hanging on his words. The Building Industry National Council want to know what is the Government's policy, and not only them, but everyone is asking: "What is the Government's policy?"
The President of the Board of Trade should remember that we have been buoyed up with hopes for months that the. World Economic Conference was going to be a great success, or a success of some sort, and that it would produce a policy. The World Economic Conference, w are told, is not absolutely dead, brut is adjourned. When this House is adjourned, nothing more is ever heard of the matters that have been under discussion. It seems likely that the World Economic Conference will follow Parliamentary practice. The point is that that hope is absolutely gone. The right hon. Gentleman is asked to produce confidence in the country. What is he going to do? What is the policy? It looks as if the ship of State was a drifter with nobody at the helm, and that it is drifting on to a lee shore. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can give some encouragement to a House which has shown in every quarter a desire for information as to what, if anything, is in the Government's mind.

9.12 p.m.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I have listened with very great care to the speech which has just been delivered by the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee). So far as I understand his argument—it did not strike me, by the way, that it was a continuous argument—he wanted to know from us what were our definitions of proper wages, the right level of prices, and how much of the difference between wholesale prices and retail prices was swallowed by the middleman, and he dragged shipping in. He wanted some information on the subject of shipping.

Mr. ATTLEE: The Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested that there was this large amount available between what the consumers paid and what the producers got, and we wanted to know where that amount was that could go to the producers.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: It has not any bearing upon the subject that is under discussion to-night.

Mr. ATTLEE: Why did the Chancellor drag it in?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. Member wants to have my technical opinion upon the subject of shipping, I ought to charge a fee. I follow the example of the lawyers in that.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Lawyers do not charge a fee for information given in this House.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is the President of the Board of Trade entitled to treat the House in this fashion? He is there as a Minister of the Crown, and a salaried Minister, and we have asked him as a Minister of the Crown to give us information.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman will go too far.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I say at once that I am not going to discuss here to-night the difference between wholesale and retail prices.

Mr. LANSBURY: The Chancellor did.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not going to, and the right hon. Gentleman will have to content himself with what I say. I propose to deal with the main subject of the Debate and with matters not of theory but of practice. I shall point out before I proceed any further that in this Debate we are attempting to deal with two subjects. One is the 'Government's policy in reference to home markets, and the other is the course of business at the World Economic Conference, the stage which is now reached, and the arrangements which may be made. Each of these is a subject of considerable importance. May I deal, first of all, with our national policy here at home? The course of the Debate has shown a certain amount of anxiety, which had previously found its way into the Press, as to whether or not the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Prime Minister and myself meant the same thing when we were talking about capital works. I hope the speech which has been delivered already by the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made the point quite clear. He has stated unequivocally that, when I spoke at the World Conference, I was expressing the view of himself and the other members of the United Kingdom Delegation, and of the Government as a whole.
The suggestion has been made by (my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) that the Prime Minister held views regarding capital expenditure which were not identical with ours—

Mr. LANSBURY: He did in America.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not know that the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to say what did actually pass in America. There has been no official report of that, and, in a matter of this kind, I think it is scarcely good enough to quote the Prime Minister unless the actual words are before us. I do know what he has said definitely in this country, both in the Press and at this Box, and there is no doubt that he felt, just as we felt, that the capital expenditure of the last 13 or 14 years has made very little impression —certainly no permanent impression—upon the problem of unemployment. That is a fact which we cannot overlook, and, when the subject is dealt with, whether in the World Conference or elsewhere, we should be foolish to ignore the experience which we have already gained at very great cost.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs very soon left that subject in order to explain to us his reasons for believing that the World Conference had ended in failure, that it left the state of the world blacker than it has been at any time since the War, and that to make any attempt at economic disarmament in Europe at the present time was really to ignore what he regards as the facts of the case. I think my right hon. Friend takes too gloomy a view of the state of the world. As a matter of fact, in the weeks during which we have been meeting at the World Conference we have come face to face with a great many of these economic problems in their most acute form,-and perfectly frank statements have been made by the various delegations representing the several governments. They made quite clear, directly they came down to the discussion of details, what their main fears were. I hope I am not misrepresenting any of them when I say that one thing that was uppermost in their minds was that, in being asked to disarm, they were being asked to give up their only means of defence against fiscal and economic policies which might
endanger their own internal trade. They declared quite frankly that they were not prepared to give up their right to impose prohibitions if in their country there might be a violent influx, due entirely to depreciated currency, of goods sold at prices well below their cost in the importing country, and they stated one after another that, until they were assured of something like stability in foreign ex changes, they did not regard it as safe to embark on any great diminution of their prohibitions, quotas, or tariffs. Those, undoubtedly, were facts, and we accepted them.
If we had had our way, we should certainly have made progress, both bilaterally and multilaterally, towards a reduction of trade barriers. We take a different view of the state of our trade from that which is held by the representatives of a good many other countries. Whatever may be the case elsewhere, it is quite certain that we here cannot exist, with our present population, unless we are able to cultivate and expand and foster by every means in our power the export trade of this country. It is very easy to make a gloomy survey of industry here, but let us keep in mind one fact, and that is that, in most of the export trades, with the exception of coal and cotton, there has been a very distinct improvement during the last 12 months. We want to see that accelerated. Our interests lie mainly in the export trade. The home trade, very largely owing to the Government's policy, is able to take care of itself, but we want to make sure that the export trade is likely to expand and be able to maintain the great population which used to depend upon it in the past.
Of course, my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs was quite right in laying stress on the extension and prosperity—the increasing prosperity, let us hope—of home agriculture, and I doubt whether as much has been done for home agriculture in any one Session in the lifetime of any Member here as has been accomplished by the present Minister of Agriculture during this very Session of Parliament. We are on the right lines. I do not know what was in the mind of my right hon. Friend, except, indeed, that he believed that we ought to spend more money on reclaiming waste land, on afforesting waste land,
and on settling on the land. All of these are undoubtedly sound economic propositions if you can get a return out of them which is commensurate with the capital involved. We have had in this country a good deal of experience of afforesting waste land, and anyone who has gone into it in detail must know that an enormous amount of money has been sunk for which we shall never get any return, either by way of interest or income, or in supporting the population, or even in supporting smallholders who, for about three months in the year, can find employment at afforestation. I would not grudge any expenditure that would lead to an increase of our population on smallholdings or new plantations, or to the reclamation of land from whatever source. That would be a kind of expenditure which would be well worth while. Although it might not bring in an annual return of pounds, shillings and pence in our own time, it will help to support a larger population, and to that extent I am in full agreement with my right hon. Friend. I think that that would come well within the four corners of our national policy, no matter who may be directing the affairs of the country.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: Would the right hon. Gentleman recommend that policy to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, rather than a policy of cutting down?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: My hon. Friend is really out of date, if I may say so. These matters have been under consideration by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and are now being carefully studied in detail on technical grounds by the Government. These suggestions, to which I have listened with very great care to-night, are really all stale. I do not know that there was anything more in the speech of my right hon. Friend with which I need detain the House. So far as I am personally concerned, I have been asked again and again, both here to-day and on other occasions, what were the grounds for the speech which I delivered at the World Conference. I am quite ready to tell the House in greater detail than I told the Conference itself. I spoke there very briefly. I hope that I never speak too long, and certainly at the Conference I tried to pack into a very short speech all that I had to say on the subject.
What did I say, and what was the ground for it? I was prompted to deal
with the subject somewhat emphatically and, I hope, clearly by reason of the request which had been put forward in the course of the meeting of the Economic Commission. At least two very eloquent and moving speeches had been made by the members of the Commission. They were both voicing the. schemes of the International Labour Office. They both had in mind what had already been done by the committees which had sat on this subject, and I have no doubt that the whole of the Commission knew perfectly well that the programme that had been set out could not possibly be either initiated or carried through without the flotation of loans in France, in Great Britain, or conceivably in America. Now, when we were asked, as we were inferentially, to provide funds for schemes of a nature which we had already tested in this country, we should certainly have been very foolish to allow the impression to go to the Conference that we were going to_ play an indiscreet and reckless part. I do not criticise the work of the Committee. They were undoubtedly doing the best they could with the material before them, and there was no harm in their expecting they could raise loans in this country. The harm that would have been done by letting them remain under that false assumption would have been very great indeed, and would have been lacking in candour. We had to tell them we would not provide money from London for these schemes.
Some criticism has been made of the Prime Minister because, in answer to a question the other day, he referred to schemes from Eastern Europe. I turn up the report of the Committee and take the whole of the schemes in Annexe 1 of the report. The first two items both concern Austria, which is Central Europe. It may not be Eastern Europe, but it is not Western Europe. The next three schemes are from Bulgaria, which is Eastern Europe. Then there are two from Greece, which is certainly not Western Europe, and two from Hungary. Then two from Latvia and a vague suggestion of schemes from France, the only Western example. Then follow eight classes of schemes from Poland and three from Yugoslavia, and that is the lot. Surely the Prime Minister was justified in describing these as schemes from Eastern Europe. Although it may not be a very scientific description of the geo-
graphy of the schemes, it certainly did convey to anybody who knew what had been passing in the Committee exactly what was meant.
If we were asked to deal with these schemes why should we not, first of all, see what we had been doing in that direction? I turn up the final report of the Unemployed Grants Committee covering the period from December, 1920, to August, 1932. During that period schemes had been approved for grants amounting all told to £190,000,000, of which £113,000,000 was non-revenue producing. If they had been in that classification, it is quite clear there would be no interest paid on the loans we might have been induced to raise here. We cannot raise loans without some provision for the service of the debt. The remaining £77,000,000 came under revenue-producing and, of these loans, the three biggest items were water supply, dock and harbour improvement and equipment, and electricity supply. The others were of minor importance, but those were the three big ones, and the only ones amounting to anything very much in the way of revenue-producing items. Between them, those three covered one-third of the gross total, and no more.
I turn from that table to another of greater importance, the table which concerns the repayment of these loans. There are a great many people who talk glibly about the floating of loans for capital works, but who do not seem to realise that one of the main considerations in connection with these loans is that they should be repaid. When were the loans made in the period 1920 to 1932 to be repaid? Their repayment was to cover a period running up to 1963-64. The biggest amounts were to fall in the periods 19;32-36, 1936-41, and 1941-46. That deadweight debt has to be provided from somewhere or another. One of the disadvantages of our schemes is that they have created this deadweight debt, partly borne by the local authorities and partly by the Exchequer.
We were justified in asking whether the schemes had, in fact, been worth while from the point of view of the unemployed. I cannot believe that anyone, going through those details, will not come to the conclusion that this was the most expensive way of dealing with that and that in practice it had been found to be
a failure. I will mention only one set of schemes covering capital expenditure. Let me turn to the schemes outside the Unemployment Grants Committee. The Chancellor of the Exchequer mentioned this afternoon that since 1920 there had been £120,000,000 spent on telephones. No one can say we were not generous on that. Then there was £130,000,000 spent on road schemes. On works of public utility, which, I take it, are the better class of these loans, covering docks, railways, electricity, etc., about £40,000,000 was spent. In addition to this £70,000,000 was guaranteed by the Government under the Trade Facilities Acts. Those were the major schemes. There were a number of smaller schemes on which sums were also spent on land settlement, land drainage, etc., all of which enabled us to test out this way of dealing with economic problems and providing work for the unemployed. The truth was that we in this country had more experience of this method of dealing with economic problems than had any other country in the world. Nothing like so much has been done anywhere. If you turn to America, they are only just beginning. They are learning. On the Continent of Europe they have nothing commensurate. They have not even attempted to cover the wide field we have done. In those circumstances, it would be unfair to the Economic Conference not to have given them the advantage of our experience. What I did say was said in the plainest possible language.
I put that aspect upon one side, because I do not think any discussion of the exact phraseology used in this House, or in the Conference or in the newspapers matters very much. What does matter to us on the eve of the Adjournment is to know whether the work which up to the present has proved productive is likely to be continued. I say "has proved productive" because we have a record of improvement in this country which is not to be paralleled anywhere else. My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, speaking on Saturday with that moderation which is one of his most marked characteristics, understated the figures of those who have been put to work during the last 12 months under the influence of Government policy as well as the recovery brought about by the energy of those engaged in trade. He said that 12 months ago employment was bad, but in ate course of 12 months the
number of persons employed, apart altogether from the unemployment figures, had risen by 461,000. My right hon. Friend might justifiably have said that since January last the number of those actually at work had increased by 500,000. How much could have been done under any of these schemes of public works? At the very maximum there was no period during which these schemes were in operation when the total number of persons employed on them came to more than 114,000. I understand that some organisation outside has been challenging the figures of the Minister of Health which I repeated. I have never found the Minister of Health inaccurate. He has one of the coolest brains in the House, he is one of the most exact statisticians, and I trust his figures implicitly, and, if he tells me that 114,000 is the maximum which at any time we were able to employ under these national schemes, I accept his figures. I will not compare them with the 500,000 who have been put to work since January.
It would be indiscreet to say that that is entirely due to Government policy. It was not. It was due very largely to the people who are themselves, engaged in trade, with their representatives abroad, those who have been labouring at home under new schemes, inventors of new processes and new machinery. It is a very remarkable fact that the number of persons employed has been going up. You cannot explain that away, and I believe this improvement which we see at home is going to continue.
There are four tests which can very easily he applied to the condition of an industrial country. First of all is there any increase in its postal turnover? That is a very good test, for activity of trade is reflected at once in the postal returns. Undoubtedly the turnover in the Post Office has been going up rapidly and is still rising—a very good sign. The next is this. There is no industry in the country that is not dependent to a, large extent upon the use of chemicals in its processes. They are a most important raw material. We know more or less the output of chemicals and, from all the most exact information that I can obtain, there appears to be a, continuous rise in the use and manufacture of chemicals by the big combine, Imperial Chemical Industries, and the other companies associated with it. That is a very
good sign. It shows, at all events, that in the greater trades where chemicals play a very large part there is renewed activity and an increased demand. Railways have been mentioned. There is undoubtedly an improvement in the railway traffics, not as great as we all hoped for or expected, but railway problems are complicated in a way that no others are and, at all events, the traffics are better.
I understand that the coastal shipping trade is really doing better than for many years past. That should be a great satisfaction to the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. We ought to take credit for that. That is all to the good. Some of my friends who are engaged in banking and merchant banking in the City tell me that during the last month they have had more commercial bills through their hands than they have had at any time for some years past. There is no reason why there should not be continuous improvement. If you ask what the Government are going to do during the Recess, they are going to continue along the same lines of policy which have brought about these results. If you ask me what we are going to do with regard to tariffs, we shall continue our negotiations for bi-lateral settlements and, if we have to use multi-lateral means to secure hi-lateral agreements, we will use them or any other justifiable means. If you ask me what we are going to do with regard to the prohibitions and quotas which are hampering us in Europe, we will use our persuasive powers, so far as we have them, with the representatives of other countries and we will hold out to them the hope of increased trade with us if they are prepared to lend their hands to increased trade on their side. These things must be reciprocal and, if they are reciprocal, I have no doubt that we shall be able to make offers which are attractive. Negotiations are going forward with some of the smaller countries in Europe. In a short time I hope we shall have disposed of the whole of those which are regarded as of secondary importance because of the size and the volume of their traffic. Every country that comes into arrangements with us now, I hope, comes into a new relationship which will mean not only an extension of our traffic but an increased confidence in what we can do for each other in the future.

FLYING-OFFICER FITZPATRICK (POLICE ACTION).

9.41 p.m.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: I wish to address the House on the subject of Flying-Officer Fitzpatrick which I raised at Question Time to-day. I never thought this question would have come before the House at all. I handed the papers concerning the case to the right hon. Gentleman's Private Secretary some 10 days ago. I well know that mistakes can occur in any force and that in so large a body as the police force everyone cannot possibly be perfect, but I felt certain that it would be sufficient to draw the attention of the Home Secretary to the fact for disciplinary action to be taken. It was only when, at the end of a week, I received no satisfactory answer that I put down the Question that came fip to-day, but even then it did not occur to me that the answer I received would be a justification of the action of the police and a complete refusal to take any action whatever. As the Home Secretary has given the story of the police. and only of the police, I am compelled to tell the story of Flying-Officer Fitzpatrick. He went to Derby to collect his Rolls-Royce car which was being repaired. Some friends asked him to remain to dinner and go to a play. He drove the car back to London and put it up at a garage at Putney, where he was having a new body put on it. He took a taxi-cab into London. He went first to the Sloane Court Hotel and found it was full. He went to the Cadogan Hotel, and found that it was full. He then took his taxicab to Victoria, where he dismissed it. He took his suitcase in his hand, meaning to see if he could get in at either the Eggleston or the Grosvenor Hotel He was walking down Gillingham Street when a saloon car drove up behind him and two men jumped out quickly. One of them, who subsequently turned out to be Detective-Sergeant Fish, of the Criminal Investigation Department, said in a very threatening manner: "What have you got in that bag?" This is the first point at which the testimonies of the police conflict with that of Mr. Fitzpatrick. The right hon. Gentleman, in his answer this afternoon said:
When, as in this case, a man carrying a suitcase tries to hurry away on the approach of police officers, it cannot be said they have not got reasonable ground for suspicion.
Mr. Fitzpatrick could not have, nor indeed did he, run away from a motor-car approaching him from behind, and which overtook him on the curb. On this matter, as in every other, the right hon. Gentleman has accepted without question the testimony of the police. Flying Officer Fitzpatrick thought definitely when he was threatened that he had to do with car bandits, all the more so after he had seen in the papers a few days before that a man had gone up to a women saying that he was a detective and demanded that she should hand him her handbag, which she did, and he ran away. He was a thief. Fitzpatrick, in answer to the question "What have you got in that bag?" said, "That is my business." The policemen said, "We will soon show you whose business it is. Up to that point there had been no question of these men stating that they were police officers. At this point two of the detectives seized him, each by an arm, and they then produced cards, which, they said, were Scotland Yard cards. Fitzpatrick had never before seen one, and, thoroughly alarmed, and not believing that members of the police force would act as these men were acting, he said, "I do not believe it. If you are police officers, take me to a policeman. There is one round the corner." He rather hoped that by saying that he would frighten them off, and he knew perfectly well there was certain to be a policeman in Victoria Station. which was only a short distance away. But they said, "We do not need a policeman. These cards are quite good enough."
It was the refusal of these men to find a policeman that convinced Fitzpatrick that he was dealing with bandits. It was then that he began to struggle, and at this point a third man jumped out of the car. Fitzpatrick then caught hold of the railings with one hand, and held on to his suit-case with the other. But the three of them twisted his arms behind his back, causing very considerable pain, and began to push him towards the car. His tie was pulled round his neck, and tied into a tight knot. This young man—and he is very young—by this time was convinced that he was being kidnapped as well as robbed. According to Flight Officer Fitzpatrick, it is not true to say, as the police say, that he was invited to inspect the official sign on the car, as the right hon. Gentleman told the House
this afternoon. As a matter of fact, the youth was pinioned by both arms and the only thing he remembered was that he heard one of the men say, "Show him the radio," but he had not the faintest idea what they meant. He was propelled down the street with his arms twisted behind his back. The right hon. Gentleman said that no more force was used than was absolutely necessary to overcome his resistance, which was violent. If Mr. Fitzpatrick had been seen by a representative of the Home Office or of the Police Commissioner he would have seen that this young man could not offer very serious resistance. He weighs only 9 stone 8 lbs, and is only 5 ft. 8 inches high, and it does not seem necessary that these three police officers should have used sufficient violence to bruise both his arms, shoulder and wrists. So convinced was Mr. Fitzpatrick that he was dealing with car bandits, that when he was within distance of a coffee-stall he called out to the people he saw there for help. When they got near the stall some men who were at the coffee-stall stepped forward arid the Criminal Investigation Department men then held up their cards to these men, and said, "We are C.I.D. officers." The men at the coffee-stall then said to Flying Officer Fitzpatrick, "That is all right; they are genuine police officers." From that time on he ceased struggling, but nevertheless his arms were twisted behind his back in what, I believe, is called the half-Nelson position, which is extremely painful. In that condition he arrived at Rochester Row Police Station. Here, for the first time, he was questioned. The story given by the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon is in very direct conflict with that of Mr. Fitzpatrick. In his original answer the right hon. Gentleman said:
It was pointed out to Mr. Fitzpatrick that there would have been no need to bring him to the police station if he had given his explanation in the first instance in reply to the reasonable inquiry put to him by the sergeant.
In answer to a supplementary question, the right hon. Gentleman said:
Had he shown any inclination to give the reply which was necessary, none of this trouble would have occurred.
Mr. Fitzpatrick's story is that until he got to Rochester Row no question whatever was put to him. No explanation was asked for after the original, threatening
question, "What have you got in that bag?" This young man by this time was completely exhausted. He asked for a glass of water, which was given to him, and as soon as he was sufficiently recovered he protested. The question of his innocence was established in a few moments, but when he asked for an apology for what had been done, Detective-Sergeant Fish said that he was damned if he would apologise. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame !"] Yes. He was told that he ought to know better than walk about at that time of the morning. Furthermore, he was told that he was carrying his suit case in a suspicious manner. I should like to know from the Home Secretary how one ought to know better than walk about the streets in the early hours. Perhaps also it would not be out of place if a demonstration were given on the Terrace of how not to carry a suit case in a suspicious manner. That is Mr. Fitzpatrick's story.
My right hon. Friend's answer to my question this afternoon dumbfounded me, as I believe it dumbfounded the House. He accepted an ex parte statement from the police without any attempt to verify the statement by consulting the other party. What I have always understood to be a fundamental principle of British justice has been violated. It is a matter affecting the liberty of the subject. The parties who were evidently to blame were heard and every one of their statements was accepted, while the injured party was not heard at all. Incidentally, there was never at any moment any difficulty in getting hold of Mr. Fitzpatrick. His address was given on the paper which I sent to the Home Office 10 days ago. He would have come up to London at any moment at short notice, and he was in the House to-day. If I may say so, a nicer, straighter young man it would be difficult to find.
The right hon. Gentleman says that the Commissioner of Police is quite ready to depute an officer to see Mr. Fitzpatrick, if that would be any help. I consider that offer to be absolutely farcical. The case is judged and settled, the Home Secretary refuses to take any action whatsoever, but he would depute someone to see Mr. Fitzpatrick, if that would help. My answer as far as I am concerned is that it would not help. The attitude of
the House made that perfectly clear this afternoon. This is a very serious matter indeed. The liberty of the subject has been violated and the Home Secretary defends such action. I think the House showed this afternoon that it would not tolerate his point of view nor the brutal, arbitrary action of the police or anyone else. I now request the Home Secretary to institute an inquiry into the action of Detective-Sergeant Fish, who is principally responsible in this business, and to inform this House of the result of that inquiry; also to report to the House on the regulations which made such action possible, if, as my right hon. Friend said this afternoon, it was undoubtedly within the rights of the police to act as they did.

10.0 p.m.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: There are a few more facts which I feel it is incumbent upon one who has had some hours to-day with Flying-Officer Fitzpatrick, to give to the House. Naturally, when one meets an officer of a Service with which one has been associated for a good many years, one endeavours to try and arrive at a true statement of the facts in regard to any complaints which such an officer may make. On behalf of those of us in the House who this afternoon took exception to the answer of the Home Secretary, I want to make one thing quite clear, and that is that we are not, any of us, trying to make any indictment against the police, that splendid Force in general, or the administration of that Force. We are only questioning the conduct of some of its members at a particular time, a course which the Home Secretary himself, as the Minister responsible for that Force, would be the first to admit is within the rights of this House and is indeed the duty of Membears of this House.
The Home Secretary tried to defend the attitude of the police in this case by a condemnation of the conduct of Flying-Officer Fitzpatrick. I hope that when he replies he will not pursue that line any longer. I would ask him when he replies if he would consider the advisability of withdrawing, generously and wholeheartedly, any form of justification of police action by a condemnation of suspicious action on the part of Flying-Officer Fitzpatrick. There has been dis-
parity, as I was bold enough to say in a supplementary question, right through, and as my hon. and gallant Friend has pointed out, between the two parties, but I honestly cannot see, and I think the House will agree with me, that there is any justification for the suspicious movement alleged in the defence put forward on the part of the Home Secretary.
The second important disparity is that no apology was offered to Mr. Fitzpatrick, although the Home Secretary stated that such an apology was offered at the police station. My hon. and gallant Friend gave the details of the reasons why Mr. Fitzpatrick thought that he was not in the hands of the police but in the hands of bandits. I would, at the risk of repeating what my hon. and gallant Friend has said, ask any Member of this House if he had the following conversation whether he would not consider that he was up against a tough proposition at 3.40 a.m.:
Question: "What is in that bag?
Answer: "That is my business.
Reply: "We will soon show yon whose business it is.
Is not that a bandit's answer? The warrant card was produced in the dark. It is somewhat difficu!t to recognise a warrant card in the dark, particularly if one has never seen a warrant card in daylight. That is scarcely sufficient justification for the police maintaining their attitude. Then there was the suggestion of Mr. Fitzpatrick that they should take him to a policeman round the corner at Victoria Station:
Answer: "We do not need the police. Those cards are good enough.
Is not that the answer of a bandit who is about to take a person's luggage? Then there was a voice: "Take him along. Show him the car." Is not that the answer of bandits about to take away his luggage?
I say, do not let the Home Secretary blame the boy in any defence the right hon. Gentleman may make to the House. The hon. and gallant Member has stated that there were four to one against a boy of 9 stone 8 lbs. I ask: Was the arm twisting necessary? I went down to the site of this incident with Mr. Fitzpatrick and we paced the distance. From the place of the incident to the coffee stall, where Mr. Fitzpatrick first realised that he was in the hands of the police and not in the hands of bandits,
it is 100 paces. It is a further 300 paces to Rochester Row police station. In the circumstances, feeling that they had to deal with a suspicious character, the police had to use a certain amount of violence against Mr. Fitzpatrick who was resisting for 100 paces, but after Mr. Fitzpatrick realised that he was in the hands of the police the arm twisting proceeded for a further 300 paces. I ask the Home Secretary to explain why it was necessary to continue this procedure for a further 300 paces?
At the police station Mr. Fitzpatrick was abused and was told that he had no business to behave as any citizen of this country has a right to behave. Mr. Fitzpatrick feeling full of anger and mortification, and shock, asked Detective-Sergeant Fish for his name and told him that he would hear something more of the matter. Detective-Sergeant Fish gave his name, but so shocked was Mr. Fitzpatrick that he could not write it. I ask the House to realise that Mr. Fitzpatrick is a flying officer of the Reserve of the Air Force, that he can fly an aeroplane of an obsolete type which will fly at 55 miles an hour but means death at 54 miles an hour, or aeroplanes which go at 200 miles an hour. Therefore, he is not a young man of cowardly tendencies or one whose, nerves are not likely to be those of a normal person. But so shaken was he, that when he tried to write down the name the pencil actually fell out of his hand, and the name had to be written down for him. The Home Secretary's justification of the police, which was after all the gist of his reply to-day, is not right if it reduces a typical good young Britisher to the state in which Mr. Fitzpatrick was.
I submit that there was no call for Mr. Fitzpatrick to go to Scotland Yard, and I hope again that the Home Secretary is not going to say that it was open to Mr. Fitzpatrick to go to Scotland Yard, and that the Commissioner of Police or some other officer would have seen him. If any citizen is wronged by the police, it is up to the force to take the initiative and express its regret without asking the man to go to Scotland Yard, and they may be good enough to give him some sort of explanation of what they have been doing. It was due to Mr. Fitzpatrick for the Metropolitan police to have taken early steps to send an officer round to his address to explain and ex-
press regrets and had that happened the excess of zeal of Detective-Sergeant Fish might have been overlooked by Mr. Fitzpatrick, and this case would not have come before the House. I ask the Home Secretary to offer on behalf of the police a generous and frank apology to Mr. Fitzpatrick for this unfortunate excess on the part of the police whilst doing their duty in the best way they can, but nevertheless a case in which one member of the force exceeded the bounds of decent conduct and exceeded the bounds of his responsibility to the British public. In those circumstances, I feel that the House will overlook this incident and continue in the future to have that great esteem and regard for the police which we wish still to maintain.

10.10 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir ARNOLD WILSON: I crave the indulgence of the House accorded to those who are privileged to speak for the first time. I had no intention of speaking when I entered the Chamber this evening but I feel compelled to do so because I should be sorry if the Debate went further without one word being said by a private Member on behalf of the police. I have also two other reasons. I have been connected with the police in this country as the honorary commandant for some years of the special constabulary of the "OK" division, Wapping, Stepney, Mile End, and I have therefore some experience of the police difficulties in that neighbourhood. I have also seen a great deal of the police forces abroad. Curiously enough, the very thing which has happened to Mr. Fitzpatrick happened to me some three years ago. I was assailed in pitch darkness by two men who flashed electric lights into my face, three miles from a town and two miles from my home, having lost the last train home. I was carrying a heavy bag. The same question was put to me: "What's in that bag?" I said "Books." The next question was "Hold them up." I dropped the bag and prepared to slosh anyone until I discovered that they were indeed police officers. I then explained that I was a Knight of Grace of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem and a Justice of the Peace in the next police division. They said that I did not look like it, but after a certain amount of palaver one of them remained with me while the other bicycled to the next police
station to ascertain if there was such a person living three miles away. I only mention this to show that I have suffered from a similar sort of incident, and that I got away with it not by saying: "That is my business," but by putting down the bag promptly and preparing to defend myself in case of need.
I suggest that the hon. and gallant Member for Carlisle (Brigadier-General Spears) has rather overstressed this case. If it had been a workman or someone quite unknown the incident might have passed without any publicity. It so happens that Mr. Fitzpatrick belongs to a deservedly respected service, and his case has had a degree of publicity and attention—in the intervals of discussions of the World Economic Conference—which would be impossible in any Legislature in the world except our own. Is it reasonable to assume, as the hon. and gallant Member for Carlisle seems to assume, with the assistance of other Members of this House, that he is capable of judging whether the police acted rightly or not and that the Home Secretary is incapable of judging? As a humble member of the public I suggest that the police, with the tremendous responsibilities which rest upon them, with the very widespread complaints of theft and banditry, are entitled to view with suspicion people who are carrying bags at night. As for "suspicious manner," I have had some experience of actual police work, and with all respect I assure hon. Members that there is such a thing as a suspicious manner. Although it cannot be simulated, it may very well be misunderstood. The police have to use their judgment at any given moment. They are men who often begin in somewhat humble circumstances. They have to run risks. They have to exercise their judgment, and I believe that they do so with more uniform success than any other police force in the world.
We have heard a good deal of what has been going on the Continent of Europe. I have heard a good deal of what is going on to-day in police circles in the United States. To give the vast publicity which this case will give to the apparent misdoings, owing to a pure misapprehension, of two or three members of the police force very late at night, with a young man who was
in the street and lost his head—[HON MEMBERS: "No!"] It seems to me that he lost his head, because I am not without experience, and I know that the police do not indulge in these tactics unless a man does lose his head. I speak with all diffidence. I suggest that there are other remedies open to British subjects in such cases. They can appeal to the courts. They can appeal to the Home Secretary or to Scotland Yard. With all deference I cannot accept the view that if a mistake is made it is up to the responsible officials to hasten to find out and wait on the doorstep of an aggrieved person.

10.18 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): I realise that the House is interested in this problem. It might well he that my reply this afternoon conveyed to certain hon. Members the idea that I myself, or the Commissioner, desired in some sense to shield or protect the police without due inquiry. Believe me, that is very far from the case. So far as I speak for myself I can assure the House that I have no desire to be other than honest and just in dealing with these matters, and I am certain that I can say the same for the Commissioner of Police. When I first heard of this case it was through the hon. and gallant Member for Carlisle (Brigadier-General Spears). I had, of course, to get the best report that I could get from Scotland Yard. I regret very much if there has been any delay in getting the answer that the hon. and gallant Gentleman desired. But I think I am within the recollection of the House when I say—and it is the fact—that it was some time on Friday, the 21st, or Saturday, the 22nd, that either the hon. and gallant Gentleman or his secretary telephoned asking what my decision might be, and that it should be communicated to the hon. and gallant Member not later than Monday, the 24th. I understand from my office that on Monday, the 24th, the hon. and gallant Gentleman's secretary telephoned twice, and spoke to one of my private secretaries at the Home Office. The hon. and gallant Gentleman's secretary was told that the police report had not been received when she telephoned first, but had been received when she telephoned the second time. She was then told the effect of the minute which Scotland Yard had sent
to me. She was informed that the Commissioner was sorry that the incident had occurred but that Mr. Howe, who is a chief constable and who was the officer responsible for the investigation, would be very glad to see Mr. Fitzpatrick and explain the position to him.
There appears to be some idea that it was improper for Scotland Yard to have made an investigation and to have invited this gentleman to come and see them and to put his point of view. I am ready to admit that there may have been n genuine misapprehension on both sides but let me remind the House of the duties of the police who are carrying out these patrols. These patrols are for the purpose of ensuring security for the citizens as a whole and for the recovery of stolen goods and the prevention of outrages and thefts. In one division out of 22 in the London Metropolitan Police area last year over 1,200 people were stopped—in that area alone—and questioned by patrolling officers or officers in cars. As a result of stopping these people, 303 persons were arrested and a large amount of property was recovered. I am saying this to the House not as a measure of justification of anything that may have occurred in this particular instance, but as making clear to the House that they roust not run away with the idea that the police are going outside their proper duty in stopping people at any time they think necessary. In fact in so doing the police are carrying out a very difficult and very responsible duty.
I should have thought that when officers patrolling in a car observed an individual carrying a bag at that time of the morning and in that quarter of London, they were fully justified in keeping that individual under observation. That in fact was what happened. They then stopped him and asked him to explain where he was going and what he was doing. It is quite clear from Mr. Fitzpatrick'.s own account that he told them to mind their own business. It is equally clear that the officers then took him into custody and eventually to the police office. It may well be that Mr. Fitzpatrick was genuinely afraid that they were people other than the police. That may be admitted at once. On the other hand, when they came to the coffee stall and other people were there, and he appealed to them, clearly those individuals were completely satisfied When they were shown
the police card. If when that was shown in the first instance by the police officer to Mr. Fitzpatrick, he had accepted that, this trouble would never have arisen.

Captain BALFOUR: It was shown to him in the dark.

Sir J. GILMOUR: It was probably no less dark then than it was finally when he did accept it.

HON. MEMBERS: No.

Captain BALFOUR: This was at the coffee stall.

Sir J. GILMOUR: As I have said, a genuine misapprehension on the part of this gentleman may undoubtedly have taken place. I am very anxious that there should be no idea or feeling on the part of either this gentleman or of hon. Members that a fair deal was not given in this case. I would repeat that the Commissioner of Police, who, after all, was head of the Air Force and is the officer responsible for the discipline of the force which we are discussing, is prepared to see Mr. Fitzpatrick and to go into this matter with him. I would add that it is not the desire either of the Commissioner or of myself that if any officer of the force has taken action which was due to some misjudgment or error of consideration, that should be overlooked. Quite the contrary.
If, on investigation, Mr. Fitzpatrick can produce to the Commissioner sufficient evidence to show that he has been unduly or improperly handled, no doubt the Commissioner will take that into full consideration and deal with this problem as is his bounden duty in this matter. I regret very much indeed that this thing has happened and can only add that Detective-Sergeant Fish has a record of good work in very similar duties, without any complaint in the past as far as I know. At any rate, of this I am quite certain, that the duties which this patrol had to carry out are necessary duties, and it is, I hope, possible to see that justice is done to any aggrieved party as has been repeatedly done among the thousands who have been stopped in the streets of London in the last year where some mistake has been made. I trust that this case may be dealt with in the same way without grossly exaggerating an incident which I and the Commissioner deeply regret.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. LEVY: The reason I rise is that I have had an opportunity of having quite a long conversation with this Mr. Fitzpatrick since the question was raised this morning, and I rise to ask whether it would not commend itself, not only to the House but to the Home Secretary, if we took a middle course in this matter. It is very undesirable that a matter of this kind should be left in an indeterminate position. It is not conducive to the public confidence in the Police Force, which I am sure on the whole is an excellent organisation, to have these serious charges of abuse of authority left uninvestigated and unrebutted, if they can be rebutted. It is not conducive either to efficiency or to the ease of mind of these members of the force who have to carry out this difficult and important night patrol to have their conduct impeached without the opportunity of justifying themselves. It seems to me that on both sides of this matter they had reasonable grounds for suspicion. It is the duty of the police on night patrol to challenge anyone whom they regard with suspicion, and it must be admitted that more than one law-breaker has been caught carrying a bag like an honest man in the night time. It is natural, too, that a lone pedestrian carrying a bag on honest business should be startled and suspicious when three men jump out of a car upon him. While recognising that the police have a difficult task to perform in the protection of the public and that the Home Secretary has a much greater responsibility towards both the public and the police, I feel that the procedure in this case leaves something to be desired.
Two questions suggest themselves. The first is, Could not the Criminal Investigation Department men, who had nothing to fear, have satisfied the flying officer of their bona fides by calling the point policeman, as he suggested? Could not the Home Secretary have concluded his investigations with a statement from the flying officer as well as a report from the police sergeant, and thus have avoided the charge now made against his judgment that it was based on an ex paste statement? May I suggest to my right hon. Friend that, in order to satisfy this criticism, he should instruct the Commissioner of Police to inquire into this matter, to get statements on both sides, and to report to the Home
Office? I would suggest further that the matter might be raised in the House by way of questions after the Recess so that the House may be informed of the inquiry and of any action, if any, which the Home Secretary may consider it necessary to take. The maintenance of good relations between the public and the police are very important, and those relations will be impaired if the issue is left where it is. I am trying to hold the balance fairly between both sides and to ensure that the reasons that actuated both shall be given due weight. The issue is left in an inconclusive and irritating state at the present moment. The Home Secretary can allay that by undertaking in his strictly judicial capacity to have a proper inquiry made followed by action if necessary.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: I think that most of us who felt indignant this afternoon will be in the same position after hearing the right hon. Gentleman this evening. He has left the case very much where he left it this afternoon, except that 1 understand Lord Trenchard is willing to see Mr. Fitzpatrick. It seems to me that what is needed is a more judicial kind of investigation. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that some years ago a woman was arrested in the street under somewhat similar conditions. It was in 1911, and my memory does not serve me whether the House appointed a committee, but the Home Secretary of the day defended the arrest very much as the right hon. Gentleman has defended this arrest. A committee or an investigation took place, and it was proved conclusively that the officers were wrong. In this case the right hon. Gentleman said that there may have been something wrong on both sides. Perhaps there was. The hon. and gallant Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson)—I should have begun by congratulating him on his excellent maiden speech—spoke of his experience in these matters in the East End, and truthfully said that if this had been a workman or someone quite unknown the whole incident might have passed without any publicity. [HON. "MEMBERS: "Oh."] I say it might have done. I am repeating something that the hon. and gallant Member for Hitchin said.
The point I desire to make is that no one has controverted the statement, and
the right hon. Gentleman has not controverted it, that this man's arms were black and blue from being twisted. No one will convince me that it was necessary to use that amount of violence. No one has controverted the statement that as soon as the man knew that the men were policemen, he went along quietly to the station. No one has controverted the statement that the detective-sergeant told him that he would see him damned rather than apologise. All these things the right hon. Gentleman has not attempted to meet; and what I am concerned about is that if this sort of thing is done to a man who, I suppose—we can take it for granted—was dressed as an ordinary officer would be dressed, what would happen to an ordinary workman under those conditions, especially it he had happened to have had a glass of beer too much? He would have no redress whatsoever.
The right hon. Gentleman asked us to remember that the police have the right to stop people in this way. Yes, but the public ought also to be conceded the right that the men who deal with them shall do so in a judicious sort of manner. I am not going to believe that this man could have got away from a high-power motor-car, which could have followed him quite easily to see where he went. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I do not understand why the police should have been so anxious to take the man into custody at that particular moment. Even if they had been on foot they might have followed him. They could not have had him under observation very long—that point seems to have been left out of account altogether. They seem to have driven down the street, to have seen a man carrying a bag suspiciously, jumped out and stopped him. I do not think the public ought to be treated in that fashion. It would have been perfectly easy to follow the man if necessary. Also, and this is my strongest point, I do not think the police have any right to "manhandle" another man in that fashion.
The Home Secretary has, in a way, modified some of the things he said at Question Time, but he leaves the case just where it is, except that Lord Trenchard will how graciously see Mr. Fitzpatrick. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, and our course of action will be decided by his answer, whether he will
not even now appoint some small committee, not necessarily composed of Members of this House, but members of the public, whom he can choose himself, and allow Mr. Fitzpatrick to put his case before them? Let the case go before two or three—two if he pleases—members of the public, whom the right hon. Gentleman chooses himself, and let them give their verdict on the matter after having heard all that is to be said. Remember, there will be three to one against Mr. Fitzpatrick in the matter of witnesses, but I am so convinced, from what I have heard of this case, of the truthfulness of this man, that I would be perfectly willing for that course to be taken—and so, I should think, would those who raised the case—if the right hon. Gentleman will have a proper investigation.
This is not the cheap matter that some hon. Members apparently think it is. The people of London—there are 6,000,000 or 7,000,000 of us—are the most peaceful and law-abiding population in the world —the mass of us are. Every now and then someone breaks the law, and then the law takes its course. But the public of London are not kept in order by the number of police there are, because we can have them for breakfast any morning we please—such are our numbers. London is kept in order by the good behaviour and good will of the population, and an incident of this kind having obtained this publicty—and I am very grateful to the hon. Members who have brought it forward—it will not make for good will, and it will not make for confidence in the police unless the right hon. Gentleman has it properly investigated. We do not want Detective-Sergeant Fish to be discharged, or anything like that, but we want to know the facts about this case, and we want him and his colleagues to understand that we all thoroughly object to that method of dealing with civilians when they are being taken to a police station.

10.41 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I am sure that hon. Members generally regret that this matter should have had to come before the House. I agree entirely with what was said by an hon. Member that it is a pity, having regard to the general reputation of the police of this country, as compared with those of any other country in the
world, that attention should have been brought to the case in this way, but what else could have been done? If there is any responsibility for that, it rests, not upon those police officers, but upon the Commissioner of Police in this city and upon the Minister. This incident did not take place this week, but on the 14th of this month. The fact that a serious mistake had been made must have been apparent to the authorities within 24 hours. Within 24 hours of that fact being revealed, there should have been an eagerness to make what expression of regret was necessary and was within the right of this man.
When the hon. and gallant Member who brought forward this case—with reluctance, I understand, and after some delay—and made his very moderate statement—his grievance was not so much against the police officers, who are liable, like all frail mortals, to make mistakes and to err from excess of zeal, but against those who are the governors in this matter, and who apparently looked upon it as of such trifling importance that it was days before the request for an apology was even considered. If this had happened to the Home Secretary him' self—we go home late sometimes from this House, carrying bags most suspiciously, it may be—we should have thought that 10 days was altogether too long before an inquiry was made. The facts were evident within 24 hours, and within a few hours of the expiration of that time an expression of regret should have been made.
The House is now left in an impossible position. I cannot accept in its entirety the story of Mr. Fitzpatrick, as expressed by the two hon. Members, because it is an ex parte statement. No lawyer in the country could accept that statement in its entirety. No one could accept the statement made by the Home Secretary in its entirety. Everyone knows that the only way in which you can ascertain what did happen—so far as we can ascertain what happened at that early hour of the morning—is by an independent inquiry, in which the two statements are weighed. The hon. and gallant Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) suggested that this incident would bring disrepute upon the police, as in other countries, like America, but surely it
adds to the repute of the administration of justice in this country that an event of this kind happening, as we believe, very rarely, is considered of such importance that an inquiry ought to be made into it. I do not want any elaborate machinery, but I believe that an inquiry might very well be made. It is not fair, where the police are concerned, that the police should make the inquiry. No man can be the judge in his own cause.
This matter has not been brought before the House wantonly. As has been said by hon. Members on the other side, it has not been brought forward in order to embarrass the Government, but because there is a public duty to discharge. The public mind will not be satisfied unless there can be an inquiry, and unless the main charges contained in the statement of the hon. and gallant Member are maintained or are disproved. What was said by the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, just now is quite true. This might have happened to a man who could not give as clear an explanation of the circumstances as this gentleman could. Fortunately, he is a man whose record, and, apparently, all that happened to him that day, could be brought before the whole world, but, supposing that he were someone who had something against him altogether independently of this case, we should never have heard anything about it at all. The law is intended, not only to defend the respectable, but to defend those who have their right to the law even though they may not have an entirely clean life. They have their right, and that is why the law is there—to defend the suspected as well as those who have a perfectly clean record. For the present position no one is responsible except the highest authority—not the police—and for that reason I think the public mind will not be satisfied without an inquiry, which can be expeditious and which ought to be independent.

10.47 p.m.

Mr. WISE: I should not have taken part in this discussion but for the speeches of one or two hon. Members who have been assailing the police. [HON. MEMBERS: "No !"] I should have thought that the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) would have felt that the action of the police was almost sufficiently Cromwellian in this case. The
Leader of the Opposition suggested that these police officers acted very much in excess of their duty—that they should have followed this gentleman with a handbag for longer than they did, presumably in their police car, and should have waited much longer before going up and asking what fie was doing. I cannot see that they did anything which a police officer should not have done, up to that moment. Let us assume that Flying Officer Fitzpatrick was not the innocent person that, in fact, he was. In that case, would not the police have suffered a considerable reprimand if they had allowed a suspicious character carrying a bag to get away? The police officer has a most difficult and onerous task, and he carries it out with extraordinary restraint. There is only one suggestion that I should like to make, and that is that it might be possible for motor patrols to patrol in uniform and not in plain clothes. In that case there would be no chance of any misunderstanding, and, in a car, they would be equally effective whether in uniform or in plain clothes. Apart from that possible readjustment, I think there are many Members of the House who do not feel that these men have been fairly treated in the arguments which have been advanced against them, and in the way in which their action has been dealt with.

10.49 p.m.

Major PROCTER: I should like to remind hon. Members that it is not long since, the House having been carried away by the feelings which it rightly has regarding the sacredness of the liberty of the subject, the Savidge inquiry was instituted, which even resulted in murderers going unhung owing to the stifling of the activities of the police and their fear of getting reprimanded. It is admitted that Mr. Fitzpatrick made a mistake, and that was under the misapprehension that they were car bandits. Surely we can in the same spirit of justice admit that the police officers also made a mistake. It would be a lamentable thing if when on patrol duty a police officer who saw people with bags acting in a suspicious manner should through any action of this House be deterred from making an arrest, if necessary. Therefore, I hope the House will be satisfied with the explanation of -the Minister.

10.51 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: May I reply to the question which has been put to me by the Leader of the Opposition? The last thing that I should desire would be in any way to take a line which would lead this House to think that proper inquiry was not made into this case. Let me remind the House of the fact that there are in London between 12,000 and 14,000 people stopped and questioned by the police, and out of all these people there are very few complaints. In fact, it is found that the ordinary investigation by the officers concerned is sufficient, and that there is no difficulty. Of course, it is a fact that in this case this aggrieved gentleman has been invited to take the course that many other people take of having their cases investigated. I repeat that invitation. [HON. MEMBERS: "By whom?"] Through my office. After all, I am responsible in this House for the Metropolitan Police, and the Commissioner is responsible for discipline within the Force. It would be a very odd thing that this House, in a case like this, which is one of many others in which some mistake may have been made, should not allow the ordinary course of investigation to proceed. I trust the House will believe me when I say there will be no doubt as to the investigation which the Commisisoner of Police will make, and I hope, in fairness both to this gentleman who is concerned and to the officers of the police concerned, that this particular matter may go through the ordinary method of procedure, and that the House has enough confidence both in the Commissioner—[HoN. MEMBERS "None at all !"]—and in myself.

10.54 p.m.

Captain BALFOUR: May I ask one question of the right lion. Gentleman, by the answer to which my own action will be guided? Do we understand that this gentleman will now receive from the Home Secretary's office a letter asking him to call in order that he may make his case? Because it must be very hard for a young man in these circumstances to call at Whitehall unless he received an official request. If that assurance is given, I feel certain the investigation of the Commissioner will satisfy the House.

Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, most certainly.

10.55p.m.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: Are we to understand that there is to be a proper investigation into this matter by the right lion. Gentleman's Department? This afternoon we were told quite definitely that there would not be such an investigation.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have said that there will be an invitation to this gentleman to go to Scotland Yard to see Lord Trenchard, and I have told the House that Lord Trenchard will take whatever information this gentleman may give him. He will satisfy himself that these questions which may be raised are properly investigated, and he will report to me.

Mr. LANSBURY: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman definitely to refuse to allow any investigation into this case other than through the Commissioner and the Department of the Commissioner?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, Sir.

Commander MARSDEN: This officer is a very nice young gentleman but he is also very nervous. In entering the portals of Scotland Yard, will he be entitled to be accompanied by a friend to assist him?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I do not imagine that there would be any objection to that.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 197; Noes, 29.

Division No. 294.]
AYES
[10.55 p.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Eillston, Captain George Sampson
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Eimley, Viscount
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nhd.)
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Martin, Thomas B.


Apsley, Lord
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Milne, Charles


Atholl. Duchess of
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd Chisw'k)


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Gibson, Charles Granville
Moreing, Adrian C.


Bateman, A. L.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Morris, John Patrick (Salford. N.)


Beaumont, Hn. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Glossop, C. W. H.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Bann, Sir Arthur Shirley
Goff, Sir Park
Morrison. William Shepherd


Bernays, Robert
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Munro, Patrick


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middiesbro', W.)
Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Birchen, Major Sir John Dearman
Guy, J. C. Morrison
North, Edward T.


Boulton, W. W.
Hanbury, Cecil
Nunn, William


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Harbord, Arthur
Palmer, Francis Noel


Bracken, Brendan
Hartington, Marquess of
Pearson, William G.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Penny, Sir George


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Percy, Lord Eustace


Broadbent, Colonel John
Holdsworth, Herbert
Pete, Geoffrey K,(W'verh'pt'n,Bliston)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hare-Belisha, Leslie
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Horobin, Ian M.
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Browne, Captain A. C.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Pybus, Percy John


Burghley, Lord
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Inside, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Rankin, Robert


Castlereagh, Viscount
James, Wing Com. A. W. H.
Ratcliffe, Arthur


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Jamieson, Douglas
Rathbone, Eleanor


Chapman, Col.R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Jennings, Roland
Rea, Waiter Russell


Christie, James Archibald
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-


Clarke, Frank
Jones. Lewis (Swansea, West)
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Clarry, Reginald George
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Knight, Hollord
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Colman, N. C. D.
Leckie, J. A.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Conant, R. J. E.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cook, Thomas A.
Levy, Thomas
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Salt, Edward W.


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Crookshank, Col. C.de Windt (Bootie)
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Salley, Harry R.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Cross, R. H.
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Mebane. William
Slater, John


Denman, Hon. R. D.
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Smith, Louis W, (Sheffield, Hallam)


Dickle, John P.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Smithers, Waldron


Dower, Captain A. V. G.
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Somerset, Thomas


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
McKie, John Hamilton
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Eastwood, John Francis
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Edge, Sir William
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Stewart, I. H. (Fife, E.)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot
Stones. James


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Mender, Geoffrey le M.
Storey, Samuel


Strauss, Edward A.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon. S.)


Sueter, RearoAdmiral Murray F.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Summersby, Charles H.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Wise, Alfred R.


Sutcliffe, Harold
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Womersiey, Walter James


Templeton, William P.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Thompson, Luke
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.



Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Thorp, Linton Theodore
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-
Captain Austin Hudson and Lord


Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wlck-on-'l.)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Erskine.


NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Banfieid, John William
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mainwaring, William Henry


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Groves, Thomas E.
Milner, Major James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Jenkins, Sir William
Parkinson, John Allen


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Smith, Torn (Normanton)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Dagger, George
Leonard, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Logan, David Gilbert



Dobble, William
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Edwards, Charles
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Mr. D. Graham and Mr. John.


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
McEntee, Valentine L.



Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND OTHER OFFICERS SUPERANNUATION (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be considered forthwith," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 1.—(Certain reductions in remuneration to be disregarded for purposes of superannuation.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 17, leave out "April" and insert "July."

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. SPEAKER: I must point out that this Amendment raises a question of Privilege. It involves a charge on the rates.

Mr. SPEAKER: A special note of the Amendment will be made in the Records.
Subsequent Lords Amendment, in page 4, line 42, agreed to.

CLAUSE 6.—(Application to Scotland.)

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 16, leave out from the word "authorities" to the end of the Clause.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment also raises a question of Privilege. It involves a charge on the rates.

Mr. SPEAKER: A special note of the Amendment will he made in the Records.

IMPORT DUTIES ACT, 1932.

Resolved,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 15) Order, 1933, dated the twenty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the twenty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, be approved."—[Dr. Burgin.]

GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 AND 1929

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen and, Burgesses of the borough of Wallasey, which was presented on the 11th day of July and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade
under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Chester United Gas Company, which was presented on the 11th day of July and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Watford and St. Albans Gas Company, which was presented on the 11th day of July and published, be approved."—[Dr. Burgin.]

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY ACTS.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, in respect of part of the parish of Inverness and Bona, in the county of Inverness, which was presented on the 4th day of July, 1933, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of part of the borough of Buxton and part of the rural district of Chapelen-le-Frith, in the county of Derby, which was presented on the 4th day of July, 1933. be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of an area comprising portions of the counties of Stafford, Worcester, and Salop, for the suspension of powers of purchase of existing undertakings and for other purposes, which was presented on the 6th day of July, 1933, be approved."—[Lieut.-Colonel Headlam.]

CHURCH OF ENGLAND ASSEMBLY (POWERS) ACT, 1919

Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: I beg to move,
That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Benefices (Sequestrations) Measure, 1933, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent.
The Measure is one that comes in the ordinary course of a supplementary Measure in respect of amendments of the present law. It has been considered by the Ecclesiastical Committee of both Houses of Parliament, and the Committee consider that it does not affect the rights, constitutional or otherwise, of any of His Majesty's subjects and are of opinion that it should proceed.

Sir JOHN BIRCHALL: I beg to second the Motion.

Resolved,
That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Benefices (Sequestrations) Measure, 1933, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent.

Resolved,
That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Parish of Manchester Revenues Measure, 1933, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent"— [Mr. Denman.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Ten Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.